|
Monday, May 29, 2017
In a Decision – Cohen v Cohen (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Appellate Division determined that the dissolution of the life insurance trust as part of a Divorce Agreement was required. Wife and her attorney failed to dissolve the trust The trial court ordered the dissolution of the trust, appointed an attorney for that purpose and compelled the parties to sign a retainer for the attorney’s services. After several motions the judge awarded counsel fees in Husbands favor and imposed sanctions on Wife for failing to sign the retainer agreement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court. Read more . . .
Sunday, January 1, 2017
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. At the Early Settlement Panel conference, both the parties and their attorneys (if they are represented), generally have an opportunity to sit down and discuss the issues in their case with the assigned ESP panelist. Al discussions, negotiations, offers, and counter-offers are confidential, meaning that if the case does not settle, neither party is permitted to reveal to the court what the party offered, counter-offered, or otherwise discussed during the conference. Panelists render non-binding, confidential, professional recommendations on methods of potential resolution.
Read more . . .
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Friday, December 9, 2016
In a Decision – Andreevski v. Andreevski - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Court declined to Terminate Alimony based upon Defendant’s unilateral early retirement. . Defendant effectively retired in 2012, applied for social security benefits and stopped making alimony payments. .
Read more . . .
Thursday, October 6, 2016
In a Decision – Macek v Peisch - (an "Unreported Decision") >> Defendant-father had filed malpractice actions against the two prior attorneys appointed to represent him in support enforcement hearings, and that he had requested that the third be removed because the attorney, against whom father had threatened to file a grievance, allegedly had not done the things that father thought were reasonable to do. The Family Division judge found that father was aware, pursuant to Administrative Directive #2-14 (Apr. 14, 2014), that if for "whatever reason [counsel] cannot be appointed, incarceration is not an available remedy." The judge noted that "with every attorney we have appointed for [father, he] . .
Read more . . .
Monday, November 30, 2015
Sell the Home -- After Spouse Refuses to Refinance | The Court, determined that, in this case, where the Spouse Failed to Refinance the House After Divorce, the House Could be Ordered to be Sold. | In a Decision - L.H. v. D.H., - the Court Held that the House Is To Be Sold After Divorce If Spouse Fails to refinance. The Credit of the Other Spouse Should Not be Damaged.
A snippet:
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the court holds the following:
1) A positive credit rating and score is one of the most important assets a party may have, particularly following divorce, when there is often a necessity for one to financially rebuild his or her life;
2) When a divorcing party breaches an obligation to refinance a mortgage note, and/or subsequently misses or makes late payments on same, such actions may seriously damage the other party's credit report and score;
3) Even when the responsible party pays the mortgage on time, and there are no missed or late payments, a breach of obligation to refinance or satisfy an outstanding mortgage so as to remove the other party’s name from same is still actionable, and may justify equitable relief in order to protect the other party’s credit rating from present or future damage.
4) When a party in possession of the former marital home fails to refinance the mortgage so as to remove the ex-spouse's name from the mortgage note, in violation of court order, the court may grant equitable relief, including but not limited to: (a) granting the aggrieved ex-spouse power of attorney to list the and sell the home through a bona fide realtor at a recommended price, and (b) removal of the defaulting party from the home, particularly if he or she obstructs the realtor's access to the home or any other material aspect of sale.
|
|
|
|