|
Thursday, September 22, 2016
In a Decision – LBvHB - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Appellate Division ordered a Hearing. At the time of the Divorce the Marital Agreement was prepared by the other spouse’s lawyer, the party was not represented by a lawyer, the party was suffering from maladies and substance dependence. The party waived alimony provided for $1.00 in child support without reference to Child Support Guidelines, provided for limited equitable distribution and gave up physical custody. The party did not know of the other spouse’s significant income.
Read more . . .
Friday, September 16, 2016
In a Decision – Corman v Corman - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Appellate Division agreed with the Trial Court that at the time of the Divorce the sworn testimony of plaintiff herself, made during questioning of the parties during the uncontested divorce hearing, denying the existence of any "side deals" between her and defendant and acknowledging that she understood the terms of the Agreement and intended to be bound by the Marital Agreement. Moreover, the Wife’s certification in support of the Motion includes statements that her attorney cautioned her about accepting the terms of the Agreement, and that, in her lawyer's opinion, it was a "bad deal." She rejected that information and executed the Agreement establishing she agreed to those terms of her own volition, thus undercutting the argument that the Agreement was the product of duress. The Appellate Division rejected the one (1) year later argument of the Wife that the Marital Agreement should be rejected because of fraud, detrimental reliance, equitable estoppel, and also asserted that the Agreement was a contract of adhesion. Read more . . .
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
In a Decision – Lynch v Lynch - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The marital settlement agreement enunciated the procedure required to modify custodial provisions. According to the marital settlement agreement, "[the parties] will attempt to resolve [custodial provision disputes] through personal discussion and mediation, if agreed upon at that time or otherwise by way of motion to the court." As an initial matter, we are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that modification of his vacation and parenting time falls outside the purview of "custodial provisions." Read more . . .
Friday, August 19, 2016
Tax Exemtions –Court Can Decide / Litigants Can Decide
In a Decision – Knox v Knox - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: It is well settled that the Family Part has "the power to exercise authority to effectively allocate exemptions through use of its equitable power." Gwodz v. Gwodz, 234 N.J. Super.
Read more . . .
Thursday, August 18, 2016
In a Decision – Fou v Fou - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The record supports the trial court's finding that Plaintiff established exceptional circumstances for relief from the Marital Agreement. The judge noted that plaintiff had difficulty understanding the English language and did not comprehend the differences between the Chinese Agreements and the Marital Agreement which was incorporated into the judgment. The court also noted that Plaintiff's attorney had been essentially retained by Defendant, and the retainer agreement that Plaintiff signed was invalid. Plaintiff did not have independent counsel. In addition, the court pointed out the critical differences between the Chinese Agreements and the Marital Agreement, which showed that Defendant had deceived and manipulated the divorce proceedings to Plaintiff's disadvantage.
Read more . . .
Monday, July 18, 2016
Life Insurance Obligation in a Divorce -- No Reduction
In a Decision – Bischoffv Bischoff - (an "Unreported Decision") >> The Court Held: The Appellate Court affirmed the Order denying the reduction when Alimony was reduced, because the Life Insurance represented more than an alimony assurance. {In ruling on the Life Insurance issue, the judge recognized that the large death benefit — with defendant's considerable contribution to the premium — was not intended solely as a means of ensuring the alimony obligation…. For this and the other reasons thoroughly described in his written opinion, the judge concluded that the Life Insurance policy should be left unaltered but, also, that fairness and equity required defendant's larger contribution toward the premium.} Read more . . .
Friday, June 17, 2016
College Costs -- Marital Agreement
Controls
In a Decision - Avelino-Catabran v. Catabran. - (a "Reported Decision") >> the Court Held:
absent changed circumstances, where parents' matrimonial settlement agreement clearly provides that they will share their children's college costs equally, a court need not apply the factors set forth in Newburgh v Arrigo (a case describing the manner of computing a divorced parent's obligation to contribute to college costs)
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.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Allan Weinberg - Attorney at Law - 100 Craig Road, Suite 102 Manalapan, NJ 07726 732 80 NJ LAW (732) 806-5529 AllanWEsq@GMail.com www.AllanWeinbergEsq.com Twitter: AllanWEsq FaceBook: Allan Weinberg LinkedIn: AllanWeinberg Relocation in New Jersey - OK, If you are PPR (Parent of Primary Residence?? | Divorce If you agreed in your Marital Settlement Agreement to that your spouse was the "PPR" - Parent of Primary Residence -then the PPR may be able to relocate within the State of New Jersey. | In an Unpublished Decision "Clemas", the court held: The motion judge, having reviewed the Agreement, found, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was the PPR, and as such, she was permitted to relocate within the state. The motion judge rejected defendant's argument that the language of the Agreement prevented plaintiff from having "enhanced rights" and concluded that language in the Agreement referred to the parties making joint legal custody decisions. The judge determined that the provision did not alter plaintiff's right to relocate. … The judge further determined that it was defendant's burden to demonstrate changed circumstances infringing upon the best interests of the children, defendant had not met his burden, and defendant was not entitled to a hearing on the matter because he had identified no reason why the new school district could not accommodate his children's needs, or demonstrate that he would not be able to maintain the same parenting schedule or "a reasonable alternative." ****************************************************** The information contained in this communication is similar to ordinary telephone conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry which would be applied in the event a formal opinion was rendered by this firm. The information may also be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this communication is intended to constitute a waiver of any privilege of the confidentiality of this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. This firm accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage from the use or receipt of this message and/or any attachments hereto, including any damage caused by virus. 1/31/15
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Mediation - A Benefit or a Burden?? | Divorce If you agreed in your Marital Settlement Agreement to "Mediate" future Child Issues then you may be barred from first going to Court to seek remedies and enforcement. | In an Unpublished Decision "Richardson", the court held: Here, the parties executed a comprehensive Agreement which included a provision to utilize the services of a mediator prior to litigation to address disagreements regarding time-sharing and any other issues regarding their children. Our review of the Agreement leads us to conclude that any calculation of childcare expenses, such as "lessons, sports, camps, equipment, after school care and other child care related expenses such as work related child care," is inextricably intertwined with a determination of custody and parenting time. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the Agreement recognizes that these expenses are subject to certain contingencies and changes, but fails to identify any other method of calculating these costs. ****************************************************** The information contained in this communication is similar to ordinary telephone conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry which would be applied in the event a formal opinion was rendered by this firm. The information may also be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this communication is intended to constitute a waiver of any privilege of the confidentiality of this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. This firm accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage from the use or receipt of this message and/or any attachments hereto, including any damage caused by virus. 1/29/15
|
|
|
|