|
Manalapan, NJ Family Law & Divorce Law Blog
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
In a Decision – DC v BC (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Trial Court, as a Decision of first impression, set forth that a knowing violation of a temporary restraining order meets the first prong of a two-pronged test. Two or more separate acts, even if each independently insufficient to meet the two-prong Silver test for entry of a restraining order, may in the aggregate satisfy Silver and constitute a sufficient basis for entry of a restraining order. The right of a plaintiff to seek a final restraining order, based upon a defendant's knowing violation of a temporary restraining order, exists independently of whether defendant’s violation is, or can be, the subject of separate contempt proceedings in an action for violating a restraining order under the court's “FO” docket, pursuant to N.J.S.
Read more . . .
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
In a Decision – Lomvardi v Lombardi >> the Court Held: This appeal required the Appellate Court to address the calculation of alimony where the parties relied on only a fraction of their household income to pay their monthly expenses and regularly saved the balance during the course of their marriage. Should the inclusion of savings as a component of alimony even when the need to protect the supported spouse does not exist. The Appellate Division held that regular savings must be considered in a determination of alimony, even when there is no need to create savings to protect the future payment of alimony. Read more . . .
Friday, September 16, 2016
In a Decision – Corman v Corman - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Appellate Division agreed with the Trial Court that at the time of the Divorce the sworn testimony of plaintiff herself, made during questioning of the parties during the uncontested divorce hearing, denying the existence of any "side deals" between her and defendant and acknowledging that she understood the terms of the Agreement and intended to be bound by the Marital Agreement. Moreover, the Wife’s certification in support of the Motion includes statements that her attorney cautioned her about accepting the terms of the Agreement, and that, in her lawyer's opinion, it was a "bad deal." She rejected that information and executed the Agreement establishing she agreed to those terms of her own volition, thus undercutting the argument that the Agreement was the product of duress. The Appellate Division rejected the one (1) year later argument of the Wife that the Marital Agreement should be rejected because of fraud, detrimental reliance, equitable estoppel, and also asserted that the Agreement was a contract of adhesion. Read more . . .
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
In a Decision – Verga v Verga - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The termination of alimony is a change in circumstances justifying reevaluation of the Life Insurance obligation.. . . The trial court should determine defendant's total outstanding financial obligation to plaintiff, that the insurance needs to secure.
Read more . . .
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
In a Decision – Lynch v Lynch - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The marital settlement agreement enunciated the procedure required to modify custodial provisions. According to the marital settlement agreement, "[the parties] will attempt to resolve [custodial provision disputes] through personal discussion and mediation, if agreed upon at that time or otherwise by way of motion to the court." As an initial matter, we are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that modification of his vacation and parenting time falls outside the purview of "custodial provisions." Read more . . .
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
In a Decision – Karkoszka v. Karkoszka - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: We are convinced that the court correctly rejected defendant's reliance upon the birth of his new child as a basis for a finding of changed circumstances because, as noted, defendant failed to demonstrate there were any changed circumstances affecting his ability to earn the income as before. Because defendant failed to provide such evidence and other information we held must be considered in Martinez, the court properly rejected defendant's singular reliance upon the birth of his new child as a basis for his claimed change in circumstances. Read more . . .
Monday, August 22, 2016
In a Decision – Meshulam v Meshulam - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: Although we conclude that plaintiff engaged in bad faith motion practice, we do not agree with the trial court's view that the sole issue to be explored at the plenary hearing was plaintiff's alleged fraudulent concealment of her income. Plaintiff was entitled to raise the issue of whether defendant concealed or understated his income in advance of the PSA. . . .
Read more . . .
Friday, August 19, 2016
Tax Exemtions –Court Can Decide / Litigants Can Decide
In a Decision – Knox v Knox - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: It is well settled that the Family Part has "the power to exercise authority to effectively allocate exemptions through use of its equitable power." Gwodz v. Gwodz, 234 N.J. Super.
Read more . . .
Thursday, August 18, 2016
In a Decision – Fou v Fou - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The record supports the trial court's finding that Plaintiff established exceptional circumstances for relief from the Marital Agreement. The judge noted that plaintiff had difficulty understanding the English language and did not comprehend the differences between the Chinese Agreements and the Marital Agreement which was incorporated into the judgment. The court also noted that Plaintiff's attorney had been essentially retained by Defendant, and the retainer agreement that Plaintiff signed was invalid. Plaintiff did not have independent counsel. In addition, the court pointed out the critical differences between the Chinese Agreements and the Marital Agreement, which showed that Defendant had deceived and manipulated the divorce proceedings to Plaintiff's disadvantage.
Read more . . .
Monday, July 25, 2016
Cohabitation – Alimony Credit For Boyfriend payments to Ex-Wife
In a Decision – Knox v Knox - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: It is well established that cohabitation is a changed circumstance that could warrant a modification of an alimony obligation. Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149, 155 (1983).
Read more . . .
Friday, July 22, 2016
Economic Abuse – Cause of Action For Domestic Violence
In a Decision – CG v EG - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: Defendant’s attempted interference with plaintiff’s employment constitutes purposeful harassment and coercion, and warrants the issuance of a final restraining order under New Jersey’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. A snippet: Work is a place to concentrate on work, and an objectively reasonable person most likely and logically does not appreciate or want an ex-partner phoning the employer, or appearing unannounced at the jobsite to cause disturbance. Read more . . .
|
|
|
|