Enforce Litigant's Rights

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

Husband asserted that, as part of the divorce case, the family part referred the parties to a, a social services agency. Husband asserted that the social services agency wrongfully declined to provide reunification services and instead made a referral to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency. The Appellate Division determined that because the Division of Child Protection and Permanency made a good faith referral to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency, the law provides immunity to a person or entity that made a good faith referral to the division. 

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.

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

The Appellate Division determined that because the Divorce Agreement required payments as to the Mortgage to be paid, it did not matter that the Bank’s Class Action Settlement resulted in the forgiveness of the Mortgage.

The Family Part judge denied appellant’s motion finding appellant’s lump sum payment was a “separate obligation” and that Husband failed to comply with the terms of the Divorce Agreement. A. Although the mortgage company’s settlement was unforeseen when the parties executed the agreement, the court affirmed holding Husband’s obligations to continue to pay under the Divorce Agreement terms was a separate and distinct obligation.
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.

Courthouse

Courthouse

Courthouse

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 . . .

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 . . .