Alimony

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.

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 . . .

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 . . .

Courthouse

Courthouse

Courthouse

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 . . .

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 – 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 . . .