|
Monday, March 5, 2018
The parties were involved in a romantic relationship wherein woman asserted man induced her to live with him and start a family. She further claimed man asserted he would support her for the rest of his life; however, the alleged agreement was never reduced to writing. Subsequently, woman contended that man had a "change of heart." The Appellate Division determined that palimony agreements did not derive exclusively from the family relationship, and were primarily contractual in nature. As such, the legislature's inclusion of palimony within the Statute of Frauds was protective of an individual's right to contract, not an infringement on the family unit.
Read more . . .
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
In a Decision – Kang v. Lan (an Unpublished Opinion) >> the Court Held: The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Part decision even though the experts were inapposite as to determining fair market value of the Wife’s 100% owned sole proprietorship business.
Read more . . .
Sunday, November 19, 2017
In a Decision – Pierson v. Pierson (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Appellate Division determined that Husband was required to reimburse Wife one-half the rental value of the marital residence for the period Husband occupied it after the parties’ divorce. As part of the judgment of divorce, the parties agreed to list the marital residence for sale. Father was granted exclusive possession. This did not happen for some time.
Read more . . .
Thursday, October 26, 2017
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. Read more . . .
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Monday, October 2, 2017
In a Decision – K.C. v. D.C.
Read more . . .
Thursday, August 3, 2017
In a Decision – Six v Six (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Appellate Division determined that a Mistake did occur as to the Divorce Agreement’s recital of Distribution of certain assets and that a Mistake did not occur as to the Divorce Agreement’s recital of Distribution of certain assets. The determination that certain stock was a premarital asset not subject to distribution and a retirement account was calculated twice was correct. The determination that the distribution of jewelry, collectibles, or a retirement account was intended was correct. Read more . . .
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
In a Decision – Brandspiegel-Arbely v. Arbely, N.J. Super. App.
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 . . .
Saturday, December 24, 2016
In a Decision – Bikoff v. Bikoff - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Court accepted the parties determination to utilize a 1994 ‘cut-off’ date for a 2009 Divorce. In January 1994, plaintiff filed her first complaint for divorce. In April 1995, the parties entered into a consent order that required defendant to pay plaintiff $8000 per month in pendente lite support. However, in November 1995, the parties voluntarily dismissed the divorce action.
Read more . . .
Thursday, December 15, 2016
|
|
|
|