|
Thursday, January 5, 2017
In a Decision – DiMaggio vDimaggio. (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Appellate Division Denied an Appeal of a trial court's order confirming an arbitrator's award issued pursuant to the Alternative Procedure for Dispute Resolution Act (APDRA). Having considered the arguments, the Appellate Division discerned no reason for departing from the statutory prohibition of further appeals following a trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award. Generally, an appeal of a trial court's confirmation of an arbitration decision is barred by N.J.
Read more . . .
Monday, January 2, 2017
In a Decision – Trenholm v Trenholm. (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The trial court determined that in a mater seek a specific line-item change, no new income/expense information nor Case Information Statement requirement exists. The Father ceased exercising overnight Parenting Time. The Mother simply sought to eliminate the overnight parenting time credit. Mother had not filed a new updated Case Information Statement with the Court as part of the Motion, nor had she alleged or established any other “substantial change of circumstances,” The Court found that the Mother’s application for a support modification is meritorious, and the Court may appropriately consider and grant her application for relief regarding the parenting time credit, even without the inclusion of an updated case information statement or any other substantial change in circumstances.
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 31, 2016
In a Decision – Atwell v. Atwell. (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The trial court awarded 5 years alimony in addition to the 4 years alimony paiud during the divorce proceedings on a marriage that was 6 years duration. It was contended that the total term of alimony impermissibly exceeded the length of the term of the marriage. The Appellate court found that extending limited duration alimony for five years from the date of the FJOD was improper.
Read more . . .
Friday, December 30, 2016
In a Decision – A.S. v. V.S.
Read more . . .
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
In a Decision – D.W. v. M.W.
Read more . . .
Monday, December 26, 2016
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. Read more . . .
Sunday, December 25, 2016
In a Decision – Thieme v. Thieme- (a "Reported Decision" – New Jersey Supreme Court) >> the Court Held: The New Jersey law authorizes the equitable distribution of Husband’s Closing Bonus only to the extent that the compensation was earned during the parties’ marriage. However, in this particular case, under the extraordinary circumstances presented, the New Jersey Supreme Court authorized the imposition of a constructive trust as a remedy for the Wife’s claim of unjust enrichment and that the Wife is entitled to a percentage of the portion of the Closing Bonus earned during the parties’ cohabitation The couple’s relationship was volatile from its inception The parties filed for divorce after a 14 month marriage. The parties married in 2010 and began to cohabitate in 2003. In April 2012, the parties executed their Divorce Agreement.
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 . . .
Sunday, December 18, 2016
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 . . .
Saturday, December 17, 2016
In a Decision – Puerta v. Puerta- (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Court GRANTED an AFTER the Divorce award of Equitable distribution when a default occurred and the titled spouse essentially did not offer the marital residence for Equitable distribution relying simply upon the ownership of the House remaining in such titled spouse’s name. Under the Court Rules, a plaintiff seeking equitable distribution generally first must file and serve a Notice of Final Judgment under Rule 5:5-10. However, a plaintiff whose name is already on the house could eliminate any equitable distribution interest his or her spouse has in the home by simply avoiding a claim for such relief at the time of divorce. Here, defendant, who defaulted in the divorce proceeding, would end up with the entire equity in the marital property without ever even asking for same.
Read more . . .
|
|
|
|