Default

In a Decision –       Lockwood v. Lockwood, (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court decision that although

Husband presented a meritorious defense by arguing that the Trial Court

erred in imputing income to Husband, the court held that Husband had

failed to show excusable neglect warranting relief from the judgment of

divorce.
Read more . . .

In a Decision –       Roth v. Roth, , (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division concluded that when the defaulted Husband failed to participate in the divorce proceeding, Wife was not automatically entitled to a default judgment that granted all requests regarding equitable distribution.
Read more . . .

In a Decision – Friedman v. Friedman (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal holding appellant must file an application in the trial court, pursuant to Rule 4:50-1 or on other grounds as he may deem appropriate, in order to set aside the divorce decree.

Following several years of litigation in the parties’ divorce proceedings, the trial court entered a default judgment of divorce which established property distribution, domestic support obligations, and child custody.  At the default hearing, to which Husband failed to attend, the trial judge barred defense counsel from cross-examining Wife because of Husband’s disregard for his obligation in the litigation over a period of years. The Appellate Division noted it was well established that appeals must be dismissed when taken against a judgment by default.

In a  Decision – Brandspiegel-Arbely v. Arbely, N.J. Super. App.
Read more . . .

In a Decision –   McDermott v. McCafferty (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division affirmed the Divorce where Defendant consented to the Divorce and the Divorce Agreement (after having Defendant’s Pleadings were stricken for Discovery violations).

The Appellate Division rejected Husband’s contention that contended he entered the settlement agreement under duress, because the answer was stricken in error, the court had threatened him with incarceration, his lawyer was unprepared and  the agreement should be set aside because it is unconscionable. Consent judgments are not appealable. Nor are interlocutory orders entered prior to a consent judgment, unless parties reserve the right to appeal by providing that the judgment would be vacated if the interlocutory order were reversed.
Read more . . .

In a  Decision – Swift v Swift. (an  "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

When a party refuses or repeatedly fails to appear at a scheduled ESP conference ,the court in its discretion may strike and dismiss the party’s pleadings.

In a  Decision – Schmidt v. Schmidt - (an "Unreported Decision") >> 

 the Court Held:

The Court accepted that after a failed Reconciliation the matter may exist without the submission of a new Filing Fee.

The court determined that an exceptional circumstance existed (the prior case was dismissed relatively recently and for the express reason as the parties’ voluntary attempt to save the marriage). The policy of encouraging mutual efforts at attempted reconciliation was important enough to reinstate the matter and defendant being provided additional time to answer the complaint.

In a  Decision – J.S. v D.S.- (a "Reported Decision") >> 

 the Court Held:

The Court determined that even though the parties AGREED to the entry of a Final Restraining Order pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act the Court MUST determine that domestic Violence occurred and that the victim fears for their safety.
Read more . . .