|
Thursday, November 10, 2016
In a Decision – Maurer v. Maurer (an "Unreported Decision") >> The Question Presented: Subsequent to the divorce hearing, his counsel realized the need for an adjustment for taxes regarding the value of the parties' retirement accounts.. The Appellate Division found that rejected plaintiff’s argument that enforcement of the MSA would cause an unjust and inequitable result. The Appellate Division further determined that the alleged oversight regarding these tax consequences did not render the MSA unfair or unenforceable.
Read more . . .
Thursday, November 3, 2016
In a Decision – Maurer v Maurer - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Court declined to Vacate a Divorce Judgment and Marital Settlement Agreement where, after the fact, a litigant expressed a tax consequence to a distribution of retirement funds which was not equalized. The failure to calculate the after-tax value of the pensions was of no consequence. The parties negotiated an integrated agreement, and we will not now disturb it because plaintiff asserts a change in terms would be more fair. The parties were married in 1989. The parties attempted to negotiate a settlement agreement from May through November 2014.
Read more . . .
Wednesday, October 5, 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 . . .
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 . . .
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
In a Decision – Lomvardi v Lombardi >> the Court Held: This appeal required the Appellate Court to address the calculation of alimony where the parties relied on only a fraction of their household income to pay their monthly expenses and regularly saved the balance during the course of their marriage. Should the inclusion of savings as a component of alimony even when the need to protect the supported spouse does not exist. The Appellate Division held that regular savings must be considered in a determination of alimony, even when there is no need to create savings to protect the future payment of alimony. 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 . . .
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
In a Decision – Verga v Verga - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The termination of alimony is a change in circumstances justifying reevaluation of the Life Insurance obligation.. . . The trial court should determine defendant's total outstanding financial obligation to plaintiff, that the insurance needs to secure.
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 . . .
Monday, August 22, 2016
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 . . .
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 . . .
|
|
|
|