The 1,000th Post: A Rare Published Affirmance on the Opinion Below

In re Adoption of Monroe Tp. Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2015).  Many intermediate appellate courts frequently issue opinions that affirm on the basis of rulings by trial level judges.  New Jersey’s Appellate Division, despite being one of the busiest intermediate appellate courts in the United States, does […]

from Appellate Law NJ Blog http://ift.tt/1jjJOai
via IFTTT

The Importance of a Credit Score

Lawyers and litigants alike have long understood the importance of maintaining a good credit rating before, during, and after the divorce. As the parties, particularly one who has not had significant employment during the marriage know, a positive credit rating is critical to establish a new residence, purchase vehicles, and start a new, single life. Often however, the actions of one party can have the effect of damaging irreparably the credit rating of the other. This often happens in the context of one party failing to pay the mortgage on a former marital home or refinancing the mortgage to remove the other party as obligor. Recently, this issue was examined by the court in the case of LH v. DH.

In that case, the parties’ settlement agreement at the time of divorce provided that:

…it is the intent of the parties that the wife shall maintain and keep the marital home… Husband shall execute a quit claim deed transferring his interest in the former marital home to wife, and husband’s attorney shall hold the same in escrow pending wife’s refinance of the mortgage in her name. Wife will have nine months from the date of this agreement to obtain refinance of the mortgage in her name.

This is a very common provision which is found in many settlement agreements. In this case, however, the wife failed to refinance the mortgage removing the husband as an obligor. The husband did not take any action to enforce this obligation initially. However, a couple of years after the divorce, he went to purchase a new home of his own. When he applied for a mortgage, he discovered that his credit rating had been negatively impacted, and he was unable to obtain a favorable rate for a mortgage as a result of the fact that his name was still on the mortgage for the former marital home. He then made an application in court seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement and to appoint him as attorney-in-fact to sign any documents to list the home for sale and sell it.

The court agreed with the husband and granted his request. Importantly, however, the court’s decision took notice of the fact that “as a matter of indisputable knowledge, a positive credit rating and score is one of the most valuable and important assets a party may presently possess. Simply put, a strong credit report and score can enable one with relatively limited assets or income to make substantial purchase is which he or she could not otherwise afford…. Reciprocally, a negative credit rating and score can have a detrimental and sometimes disastrous effect on the party’s financial health, often crippling the party’s ability to obtain a loan, either at a favorable rate or at all, for significant purchases such as a house, car, school tuition, or other expensive items, will potentially and simultaneously limiting the individuals healthy financial growth for years.”

This acknowledgment by the court is very significant. As a practical matter, when an agreement provides time to a party refinance a mortgage or loan, it is important for the other party to regularly check his or her credit score. Additionally, when deadlines pass under the terms of an agreement, it may be critical to take appropriate action to enforce its provisions. While this can be sometimes emotionally difficult given the fact that former spouses and often children are living in the house, the repercussions can be devastating.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Jennifer Weisberg Millner is a partner in Fox Rothschild LLP’s Family Law Practice Group. Jennifer is resident in the firm’s Princeton Office, although she practices throughout the state. Jennifer can be reached at 609-895-7612 or jmillner@foxrothschild.com.

from NJ Family Legal Blog http://ift.tt/1IgqcdC
via IFTTT

Humpty Dumpty and Joyce Kilmer, Together, Thanks to Judge Fisher

Freedman v. Sufrin, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2015).  This opinion by Judge Fisher today involved the proper interpretation of a restrictive covenant that purported to restrict the removal of trees from plaintiffs’ property.  The covenant, one of several contained in a deed from defendants to a developer of the property who long preceded […]

from Appellate Law NJ Blog http://ift.tt/1lI10rM
via IFTTT

Shareholder Kevin M. Hart Published Article on NJ.com

Stark & Stark Shareholder Kevin M. Hart, member of the Litigation, Corporate Investigations & White Collar, Shareholder & Partner Disputes, and Insurance Coverage & Liability Groups, authored the article ‘Tis the Season for Employee Theft: Protecting Your Small Business from Within, which was published on NJ.com on November 9, 2015.

The article details the risks to small businesses that come with employee theft. Approximately $50 billion a year is lost courtesy of this theft, and it is a problem which affects all types of businesses. Theft most often occurs in the form of embezzling, which can include “false bank accounts, false bank records, false billing statements, false receivable records, and even false computer records.”

Depending on the total sum of stolen funds, the criminal case will most likely be brought to the county prosecutor’s office. Instead, Mr. Hart recommends, “A far more effective response is to retain either an attorney or accountant that specializes in this area,” to better protect yourself against this theft. “If you believe your company has been a victim of internal fraud or employee theft, you should seek legal counsel immediately.”

You can read the full article by clicking here.

from New Jersey Law Blog http://ift.tt/1I69HpP
via IFTTT

An Anniversary of a Key Prerogative Writs Opinion

Sixty-five years ago today, on November 20, 1950, the Supreme Court decided Fischer v. Bedminster Tp., 5 N.J. 534 (1950).  That opinion, written by Justice Heher, contains one of the earliest and best post-1947 Constitution expositions of the action in lieu of prerogative writs, which is a staple in municipal land use and other types […]

from Appellate Law NJ Blog http://ift.tt/1I23MSK
via IFTTT

Shareholders Timothy P. Duggan & Jeffrey M. Hall Hold Two Presentations

This past week, Timothy P. Duggan, Chair of Stark & Stark’s Bankruptcy & Creditors’ Rights, Tax Appeals, and Eminent Domain Groups, held two presentations for the Mercer County Bar Association and the New Jersey State Bar Association.

Mr. Duggan’s first presentation was collaborated with fellow Shareholder Jeffrey M. Hall, member of the Eminent Domain Group, called Public Utilities and Condemnation, which was done alongside the Mercer County Bar Association. This seminar, held on November 17, 2015, discussed how public utilities are regarded when condemnation becomes necessary. Additionally, Mr. Duggan and Mr. Hall shared their in-depth knowledge of state and federal law to provide tips and strategies for protecting property owners who have been confronted with pipeline projects, including the PennEast Pipeline.

Mr. Duggan’s second presentation, Taxing Issues for Condominium Associations and HOAs: Real Estate Tax Assessments of Common Elements and Real Estate Tax Liens, for the 2015 Community Association Law Summit and was on November 18, 2015. This was a seminar for CLE credits alongside the NJICLE, the branch of the New Jersey Bar Association which handles CLE accreditation. This presentation provided tactics and solutions for a variety of tax issues that are currently impacting condominium and homeowners’ associations.

from New Jersey Law Blog http://ift.tt/1HbBe9b
via IFTTT

Bankruptcy Scammers

If you have recently filed or are in the process of filing a bankruptcy petition, be on the lookout for scammers.  As reported by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA), the scam is initiated by a phone call to the bankruptcy client with a request that money be sent to the “attorney” making the call.  Phone scammers are targeting bankruptcy filers in several states, using personal information from filings and posing as attorneys to get intended victims to immediately wire money to satisfy a debt. NACBA issued a warning that “Under no circumstances would a bankruptcy attorney or staff member telephone a client and ask for a wire transfer immediately to satisfy a debt nor would the bankruptcy attorney and staff ever threaten arrest if a debt isn’t paid.”  So far, the two states where this has occurred are New Hampshire and Virginia but consumers should be vigilant.  Simon Law Group has qualified bankruptcy attorneys to help you.

The “Voting Paradox”: Perverse and Fascinating

Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2015).  The number of different issues that judicial opinions present never ceases to amaze.  This appeal, which involved questions of antitrust standing and Noerr-Pennington immunity, presented what is known as the “voting paradox.”  Judges Fuentes, Ambro, and Greenberg were so divided on […]

from Appellate Law NJ Blog http://ift.tt/1PCc2LC
via IFTTT

“Conscious Uncoupling”: An Ode to a Mediated Divorce

As a lover of all things Coldplay, I was sad to hear that lead singer Chris Martin and his wife of more than 10 years, Gwyneth Paltrow, were divorcing. Gwyneth Paltrow announced the separation on her website Goop.com and used the term “conscious uncoupling” to describe their approach to divorce.  Although the term that had been originally coined by marriage and family therapist, Katherine Woodward Thomas, as with anything else endorsed by celebrities, the phrase went viral after her post.  It was of particular interest to me personally given my chosen profession as a divorce lawyer.

As professionals, especially ones whose entire purpose is client-centric, we are always striving for better ways to do our jobs.  In my case, that means getting clients their desired result in the most effective and streamlined way possible. After practicing for several years now, experience has shown me time and time again, that people going through divorce are most satisfied with the process when they feel they have control over it (i.e., are “conscious[ly] uncoupling”) and can proceed with a form of alternative dispute resolution (such as mediation) rather than traditional, costly, protracted litigation.

Even as American culture has become more progressive and accepting, divorce is still somewhat considered taboo and is almost always surrounded with extreme negativity and hostility.  Even if the couple themselves wants to proceed amicably, they are unfortunately often allowing others in their life (parents, siblings, friends, new boyfriend or girlfriend) to control the dialogue and encourage them to dig their heels in.

Once people “dig in”, it is often impossible to “dig out”.  Protracted litigation only intensifies negativity and hostility. The idea that divorce has to be a negative experience then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which divorcing parties behavior, is influenced by their expectation that divorce must be awful.  I believe if you change the conversation surrounding divorce and allow yourself to “consciously uncouple” you will have much more satisfying experience surrounding your divorce.

I recently completed a 40-hour divorce mediation training program. This program has only solidified my beliefs that in many cases, a mediated divorce, is a better divorce. That is not to say that litigation is never necessary. There are some circumstances that cannot be mediated and some people that simply cannot effectively participate in mediation. That said though, divorce is multi-dimensional: it is legal, it is financial, and it is emotional. The great thing about mediation is that it can effectively address each of those dimensions.

(1) LEGALLY

Whether you litigate or mediate, you achieve the same end result: a legal divorce.  A mediated divorce however is often faster, less adversarial and provides more flexible and creative resolutions, narrowly tailored to your specific family dynamic.  It also allows for a more confidential process than airing out your dirty laundry in a series of public court filings and appearances.

(2) FINANCIALLY

I will never say “always” or “never” because I’ve come to learn that nothing is absolute.  A mediated divorce however, can certainly be more cost effective. Spending less to uncouple leaves more to be divided between the parties and therefore places both parties in a better position to maintain financial independence and stability post-divorce.

(3) EMOTIONALLY

Although emotions can run high during mediation, there is a much more focused approach on compromise and collaboration rather than “winning” as is seen in litigation. When people feel their spouse is negotiating in good faith and trying to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem (i.e., zealously litigating over the smallest of disputes), they walk away feeling better about uncoupling, which leads to healthier relationships with themselves, their ex-spouse, and future romantic partners.

The takeaway from this is that choosing to uncouple, does not always have to be adversarial, financially draining and emotionally damaging. Take control of your divorce and find avenues in which to minimize the long-term effects.  Before deciding to wage war against your spouse, consult with an experienced and trained family law mediator to see how mediation can work for you.

————–

Lauren K. Beaver is a contributor to the New Jersey Family Law Blog and an attorney in Fox Rothschild LLP’s Family Law Practice Group. Lauren practices out of the firm’s Princeton, New Jersey office representing clients on issues relating to divorce, support, equitable distribution, custody, and parenting time.  Lauren also offers mediation services to those looking to procure a more amicable divorce. Lauren can be reached at (609) 844-3027 or lbeaver@foxrothschild.com.

from NJ Family Legal Blog http://ift.tt/1kF7VBN
via IFTTT

Beware the Divorce Litigant Who is Watering the Money Tree With The Tears From Cries of Poverty

Often, cases are given nicknames, sometimes by judges and law clerks, and sometimes by the attorneys.  Sometimes the nicknames come from who the people are – for instance, a case we had several years ago where both parties were models became the “model case” at the courthouse.  Sometimes, the names come from something that one or both parties did – a case where a spouse tried building a brick wall inside his house to divide the house before the divorce might have been the “brick wall case.” Right now, we have a case called “the money tree case.”

We call this case the money tree case because, despite the husband’s ever present cries of poverty, money keeps materializing from out of nowhere for lavish spending.  Turn over the entire paycheck for support – sure – yet he lives like a king with no apparent income.  $40,000 is needed for a particular expense, it is wired in a day without disclosing where it came from.  Oldest child needs a car – no used car for her, she gets a new Mercedes.  In opposing a motion for counsel fees, his lawyer laments that he hasn’t been paid in a year and as soon as the motion is decided, he gets paid in full from sources unknown.

While at the same time of crying the blues that there is no money, expensive new watches appear which was a “gift.”  One if not two residences are being paid for though who knows by whom. There are expensive vacations.  Showering the children with presents.  The home equity line gets paid off, from no known source.

Of course, there is no transparency or up front disclosure about anything up front.  It is only after he gets caught, is there a lame excuse of a “gift” or a “loan” – with no proofs as to anything.

I, myself, have mused to the judge that I would like to know where to get a money tree too, because literally money keeps appearing in this case from no known source.

What is the takeaway?  When a litigant is crying poverty, you can’t let it go at that, especially when the lifestyle and known expenditures exceed the known sources of income.  Discovery must be doggedly pursued and the total cash flow (notice I didn’t say income because who knows how this person will characterize this endless cash infusion) must be calculated as best as possible.  That is the only way that support can be fairly decided.  Moreover, this money tree may also indicate an undisclosed asset or assets that is being tapped now, but which should be divided in equitable distribution.  When crying poverty, the wiping of the tears with $100 bills  is always a red flag.

_________________________________________________________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric is resident in Fox Rothschild’s Roseland and Morristown, New Jersey offices though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

Photo credit: Copyright: <a href=’http://ift.tt/1PyAqh2 / 123RF Stock Photo</a>

from NJ Family Legal Blog http://ift.tt/1PyAops
via IFTTT

Divorce Arbitration Update

Divorce arbitration is being used much more frequently by divorcing persons in lieu of protracted and fragmented court proceedings. As a certified family law arbitrator, I can vouch for the advantages to those who decide to arbitrate instead of litigate their cases. Recently, I posted an article concerning the “nuts and bolts” of divorce arbitration. This follow-up article is intended to provide a brief update based on a significant addition to the New Jersey Rules of Court, which now specifically reference the availability of divorce arbitration.

Under the new Rules, effective September 2015, divorce cases can be sent to arbitration and thereby removed from the court’s schedule for up to twelve months. Such “official” recognition of divorce arbitration is a testament to the reality of overburdened judges, clogged court calendars and piecemeal trial days. As a result, there is no doubt that an increasing number of divorce cases will be arbitrated moving forward.

If you are considering divorce arbitration, the first step is to discuss it with a family law attorney who can recommend an arbitrator who has been certified by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and is a member of the New Jersey Divorce Arbitrators Association.

from New Jersey Law Blog http://ift.tt/1Yf6I2g
via IFTTT

A Labor Union’s Discipline of One of Its Members

Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 22 v. Kavanagh, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2015).  This opinion by Judge Currier today addressed an appeal by defendant, a former member of the plaintiff labor union, of a $115,000 fine for violations of the union’s constitution.  The Law Division had granted summary judgment to the union, upholding […]

from Appellate Law NJ Blog http://ift.tt/1H0tDKw
via IFTTT

Farmland is Not a “Brownfield,” So Application to Construct Solar Facility on Farmland Failed

In re Implementation of L. 2012, c. 24, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2015).  The Solar Act of 2012 (“the Act”), chapter 24 of the Laws of 2012, amended prior legislation to encourage the installation of solar energy projects on contaminated sites (known as “brownfields”) that might otherwise remain unproductive, while discouraging such development […]

from Appellate Law NJ Blog http://ift.tt/1MMwyT7
via IFTTT

Mobile Home Valuations – For Once Location Doesn’t Matter

It is common knowledge that in the real estate market, the selling price for a mobile home is almost always dependent upon where is located. Yet, in a recent Chapter 11 case in the district of Delaware, Boomerang Tube LLC, the debtors relied upon a decision by Bankruptcy Judge Shannon, In re George Welch Sr. (Bankr. D. Del. October 19, 2015).

In that Chapter 13 setting, the debtor suggested that the replacement value of the equipment was the proper valuation for purposes of the cramdown sought in their Plan. In this Plan, the chapter 13 debtors’ sought to assume the ground lease, retain the mobile home, and cramdown the secured creditor’s claim to value the of the mobile home as determined in the NADA Retail Value Guidebook for Manufactured and Mobile Homes.

The creditor objected based upon an appraisal it had obtained, which valued the mobile home at $80,000 “in place.” The creditor reasoned that since the debtor decided to assume the underlying ground lease and use the mobile home as a residence, the creditor was entitled to a higher figure – the true value of the living accommodation if sold as it stood. Comps in the creditor’s appraisal had relied upon the location of comparable mobile homes in order to establish value.

Judge Shannon rejected the creditor’s “in place” valuation, as this was contrary to the Supreme Court holding in Associates Commercial Corporation v. Rash 520 US 953 (1997), which adopted replacement value as the appropriate standard. The judge reasoned that the creditor did not have an interest in the land and the debtors alone were responsible for the ground lease payments. The Court reasoned that the creditor would receive the economic benefit of value only by way of the debtor’s continued expenditure of time and money post confirmation. In effect, such a ruling would provide the creditor with the economic benefit of a cost that it did not pay for or finance. Additionally, a lien on the ground lease would not extend to the creditor under state law.

The Court determined two flaws in the creditor’s analysis. The Supreme Court in Rash expressly rejected the use of a “foreclosure value” and adopted the replacement value when examining the cramdown standard. The Court found that in ruling otherwise, there would be no attribution to the debtor, who may wish to simply surrender the property rather than retain it. The Court also held that 11 U.S.C. Section 506 (a) (2) was directly applicable and provides that the replacement value means the “price a retail merchant would charge.”

In addition, the Court noted that the creditor’s security interest in the debtor’s mobile home was limited to the mobile home itself, as determined by the loan agreement. Pursuant to the TILA disclosure, the creditor was simply obtaining a security interest in the mobile home. On the TILA disclosure there was a box for “Real Estate.” This box was not checked. Instead, the creditor checked the other box that described “Mobile Home” as the sole collateral.

Since the debtor’s plan proposed paying $300 per month for the ground lease where the mobile home was located, the creditor did not have a security interest in the ground lease, nor the land, as indicated by the creditor’s own loan documents. Thus, the court reasoned, by permitting the creditor to use the mobile home’s location, the creditor sought an economic advantage that was unfair. It was simply unreasonable to allow the favorable comps relied upon by the creditor’s appraisal to include the value attributable by the ground lease’s location.

While the case reviewed in this blog is a Delaware District Court Bankruptcy case, the reasoning of the Court is correct, as both the Rash decision and section 11 U.S.C. Section 506(a) (2) strongly support that holding. In valuing a mobile home subject to a ground lease, for purpose of a cramdown, only the retail value is relevant. Courts will then often rely upon an industry-standard such as the NADA Retail Value Guidebook for Manufactured Mobile Homes to establish the cramdown value as Judge Shannon did.

When in doubt, it is prudent to seek the advice of counsel knowledgeable in this practice discipline.

from New Jersey Law Blog http://ift.tt/1MZ2av3
via IFTTT

And I Know When That Hotline Bling…

Thanks to Drake, we all know that can only mean one thing.

By thecomeupshow [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

So what happens when your hotline bling(s), and you’re in the midst of or even about to be in the midst of a divorce?

By the time they are thinking about a divorce or going through the divorce process, many clients have moved on and are ready to get out there and see other people.  And many of them are wondering how that could impact their divorce.  Here’s what I tell them:

LEGALLY SPEAKING…

Legally speaking, the fact that you’ve started dating other people generally means nothing.  With two caveats, the Court doesn’t care about your personal escapades – and that includes your dating life.  But the two caveats are important ones:

1)  Dissipation of Marital Assets:  Don’t spend your soon-to-be ex’s money on your new fling or significant other.  If you are spending money on hotel rooms, lavish presents, lingerie and so forth on your new significant other(s) that rightfully belongs to your ex, then that will have an impact on the financial outcome of your divorce.  Specifically, your ex will be entitled to a credit for his or her share of that money.  That’s going to lead to a whole lot of legal fees trying to justify what expenses you paid for that were or were not legitimate (in other words, what did you spend on yourself that was in line with what you spent during the marriage, versus what did you spend on your dating life?).  Of course, a nominal amount of spending is generally not going to be an issue; it’s when the spending becomes exorbitant that there’s a problem.

2)  Whether / How the Kids are Affected:  If your new significant other poses a danger to your kids, obviously, the Court will care.  The best interests of the children are always paramount to the Court, as they most certainly are to you.  If you are dating someone with a  criminal history, drug problem, or so forth, legally speaking (and otherwise), that’s going to be a problem for you.  A Court may find that you do not have the children’s best interests at heart and this could impact the outcome of a custody and/or parenting time determination.  And sometimes, even if the new significant other may not pose a danger to the kids, the change in the status quo might be considered too much of a disruption.  In that type of situation, the Court may impose what are called “Devita restraints,” or restraints on one’s significant other interacting with the children.

EMOTIONALLY SPEAKING…

For better or worse (see what I did there?) this area of the law comes with a lot of emotions.  It’s an outlier in the legal world, where most everything can be chalked up to dispassionate transactions and an “it’s just business” mentality.  Here in the family law corner of the profession, the path of a case is often driven by rage, sadness, anxiety, jealousy, or some combination of those.  If your ex knows you’re dating new people or have a serious relationship with a new person, that can often fuel the fire.

Maybe your ex will fabricate stories about you and your new significant other and will tell your friends, kids, or even the Court these falsehoods.  On the other hand, I’ve had cases where one party was so dejected and heartbroken by the other’s decision to move on that nothing could move forward.  In those types of cases, the grieving party just acts like the divorce isn’t happening and is completely unresponsive.  I recently had a case where the spurned spouse insisted my client was dissipating marital assets to fund her long distance relationship; his refusal to drop the (totally unsubstantiated) claim held up the matter for months.  My client was forced to go through every check she wrote and charge she made over a year-long period so she could prove her husband’s claim was bogus.

Now, it is not for us to discourage anyone from pursuing a relationship or an experience that makes him or her happy – though when you are married, one would think it would be more prudent to end one relationship before starting another.  But, the above is food for thought before you decide to pick up the phone when that hotline bling, or let it ring.

---

Jessica C. Diamond is an associate in the firm’s Family Law Practice, resident in the Morristown, NJ, office. You can reach Jessica at (973) 994.7517 or jdiamond@foxrothschild.com.

from NJ Family Legal Blog http://ift.tt/1MARAZ0
via IFTTT

APPELLATE DIVISION ADDRESSES RETIREMENT APPLICATION UNDER AMENDED ALIMONY LAW

Litigants and family lawyers have eagerly awaited each decision from the Appellate Division that could shed some light on the numerous provisions in the amended alimony law that became effective on September 10, 2014.  On November 6, 2015, the Court released an unpublished (not precedential) decision in Court v. Court, wherein the trial court’s order denying an ex-husband’s motion to terminate his alimony obligation and vacate his alimony arrears was reversed and remanded for a plenary hearing.

The decision is interesting in its application of the amended provisions of the alimony law with respect to the issue of retirement, especially based on the chronology of the facts at issue.  The factual highlights are as follows:

• The parties were married in 1981 and a judgment of divorce was entered in 2003 – approximately 11 years before the amended law took effect.
• The court in the JOD ordered ex-husband to pay $1,000 per week in alimony.
• Ex-husband was not paying as ordered and, in July 2013 he moved for a modification that resulted in a weekly alimony reduction to $500, plus a weekly payment towards accumulated arrears in the amount of $250.
• An economic downturn in ex-husband’s industry and his deteriorating health caused him to retire in August 2014.
• In 2014, ex-husband sought to terminate his alimony obligation based on his retirement at age 72.  He claimed that earned approximately $27k annually from Social Security and ex-wife was eligible, but refrained from applying for what would amount to $1,221 in monthly Social Security benefits.
• Ex-husband’s arrears totaled almost $200k as of July 30, 2014 – less than 2 months before the amended law went into effect.
• The trial court found ex-husband “provided the [c]ourt with sufficient evidence of his health problems to show he ha[d] lost his life insurance and [was] unable to be gainfully employed.”  It also found both parties in a “difficult financial situation” and noted how ex-husband’s sole income source of Social Security benefits was not enough for him to pay his bills, alimony and arrears.  The court also noted, however, that ex-husband – at age 72 – may again find work in the future and, as a result alimony should only be reduced.  The court, as a result, reduced the alimony obligation from $750 per week to $400 per week, with a $50 payment towards alimony and $350 towards arrears.

On appeal, the Appellate Court found that the trial court failed to make sufficient factual findings in support of its decision, specifically, it did not directly address the issue of ex-husband’s retirement, nor did it provide a basis for the reduced amount or ex-husband’s ability to pay “despite the findings defendant was unlikely to become reemployed given his advanced age and deteriorated health.”  Finally, the Court found that the family part judge “ignored defendant’s right to retire in good faith at age seventy-two.”

Notably, the Appellate Court directed the trial court to apply the amended alimony provisions on remand to determine whether ex-husband was still required to pay alimony.  In so doing, the Court conveyed “There is a rebuttable presumption alimony shall be terminated ‘upon the obligor spouse or partner attaining full retirement age.'”  It then cited to subsection (j)(1) of the amended law, which provides that alimony could only continue if ex-wife presented proof to overcome the rebuttable presumption based upon the following factors:

(a) the ages of the parties at the time of the application for retirement;

(b) The ages of the parties at the time of the marriage or civil union and their ages at the time of entry of the alimony award;

(c) The degree and duration of the economic dependency of the recipient upon the payor during the marriage or civil union;

(d) Whether the recipient has forgone or relinquished or otherwise sacrificed claims, rights or property in exchange for a more substantial or longer alimony award;

(e) The duration or amount of alimony already paid;

(f) The health of the parties at the time of the retirement application;

(g) Assets of the parties at the time of the retirement application;

(h) Whether the recipient has reached full retirement age as defined in this section;

(i) Sources of income, both earned and unearned, of the parties;

(j) The ability of the recipient to have saved adequately for retirement; and

(k) Any other factors that the court may deem relevant.

The Court added, in reference to subsection (j)(1) that “any arrearages that have accrued prior to [alimony] termination shall not be vacated or annulled.”  Thus, a payment towards arrearages was required in an amount based on ex-husband’s ability to pay.  Interestingly, Court indicated that the amount due could be reduced to a judgment upon which interest would accrue, thereby allowing ex-wife to take appropriate steps to collect.

I found the decision noteworthy multiple reasons, each of which have to do with the Court’s application of the rebuttable presumption under the new retirement language and its related factors.

Generally, the amended law seemingly, but not definitively from a legal application standpoint, provides three subsections in connection with an application for retirement that a trial court is to utilize depending on the facts of a given situation: (j)(1), (j)(2) and (j)(3).  Each subsection contains its own similar, but somewhat different sets of factors.  Only subsection (j)(1), which the Appellate Court referenced here, contains the “rebuttable presumption” language.  Subsections (j)(2), which applies to applications for early retirement, and (j)(3), which applies to retirement applications filed in cases where there is an existing final alimony order or enforceable written agreement, do not contain such language.

As a result, there existed a question emanating from the new language as to whether the rebuttable presumption referenced in (j)(1) applies to any retirement application, or just retirement applications stemming from final alimony orders/enforceable agreements entered AFTER the amendment’s effective date.  In other words, does the rebuttable presumption also apply to applications made under subsections (j)(2) and (j)(3)?  As the factual circumstances in Court involved a pre-amendment final alimony judgment, the answer from the Appellate Division, although not in a reported decision, suggests that the rebuttable presumption may apply to all retirement applications made under the new law.

The answer becomes somewhat uncertain, however, because the Appellate Court  remanded to the trial court with a direction that it apply the rebuttable presumption and factors enunciated in subsection (j)(1).  No reference in the decision is made to subsection (j)(3), which, as noted above, applies to retirements applications filed in cases where there is an existing final alimony order or enforceable written agreement.

Thus, while the decision in Court sheds some light on applying the retirement provisions of the amended law, it and future decisions will only provide a greater roadmap for litigants and attorneys with respect to seeking an opposing an alimony termination.

____________________________________________________

 Robert Epstein is a partner in Fox Rothschild LLP’s Family Law Practice Group and practices throughout New Jersey.  He can be reached at (973) 994-7526, or repstein@foxrothschild.com.

Connect with Robert:  

*Photo courtesy of Google free images.

from NJ Family Legal Blog http://ift.tt/1WOE8Cj
via IFTTT

A Summary Contempt Proceeding Goes Awry

Ippolito v. Ippolito, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2015).  This opinion by Judge Fisher today involved an appeal from a summary contempt proceeding.  Counsel for plaintiff in this matrimonial case wrote a letter to the Family Part judge handling the matter and accused defendant of violating a court order that prevented defendant from “threatening […]

from Appellate Law NJ Blog http://ift.tt/1NFTc4w
via IFTTT

THE NEW YORK TIMES PRESENTS A “PORTRAIT OF THE MODERN FAMILY”

I was recently reading a New York Times article from early November entitled “Stressed, Tired, Rushed:  A Portrait of the Modern Family”, and couldn’t help but see the commonalities between today’s modern family and the ever-changing issues raised in divorce.

The author, Claire Cain Miller, citing from a new Pew Research Center Study, conveyed to readers what many of us may already believe/know, even without statistical support in our back pockets – namely, that children in today’s society are more likely than not to grow up in a household in which their parents work.  The study also found the existence of households with both parents working full-time “in nearly half of all two-parent families” (46% of all two-parent households have both parents working full time – an increase of 31% from 1970; similarly, the percentage of households in which mom stays home has declined from 46% to 26%).

Parents’ ability to balance everything that comes with everyday life has only become more difficult, the study concludes, since there is only so much time that can be devoted to the kids, each other, friends, the house, the family dog, and, last but not least, the workplace.  Miller also noted that how the data reveals that workplace policies (such as paid family leave and before/after child-care) are not yet up to speed, or current to truly help with the situation when dealing with what is described as a permanent and societal shift in the traditional family structure.

Pew found that 56% of all working parents say the “balancing act is difficult, and those who [found such difficulty] are more likely to say that parenting is tiring and stressful, and less likely to find it always enjoyable and rewarding.”  It should be no surprise to anyone, as a result, why divorce rates are rising nationwide.

Interestingly, the article touched upon a changing shift in the mentality of parents that divorce lawyers find more common than ever in custody disputes – specifically, situations where mom still asserts that she has always handled primary caretaking responsibilities despite working full-time, and dad asserting that he does just as much as mom, if not more.  In other words, the article notes:

In most cases . . . women still do the majority of the child care and housework – particularly managing the mental checklists of children’s schedules and needs – even when both parents work full time . . .Just don’t tell fathers that.  They are much more likely than mothers to say they share responsibility equally.

Not surprisingly, more dads say they equally share in such tasks than moms think they do.  Custody evaluators in our field are, more than ever, making recommendations about what is in the children’s best interests where both parents work full-time.  For better or for worse, evaluators are seemingly more likely, under such circumstances, to recommend an equal residential parenting time arrangement.

Some other notable statistical findings from the Pew study:

• Of full-time working parents, 39% of moms and 50% of dads say they feel that they spend too little time with the kids.
• 59% of working moms, and more than 50% of working dads, say they don’t have enough down time.
• The difference between working parents with college degrees versus parents without such degrees (65% with and 49% without) found the work-life balance difficult, with Miller speculating that the reason may be that workers with degrees may be expected to log in hours even after they leave the office despite increased flexibility during the work day.
• White parents are more than 10% likely to express stress than nonwhite parents.
• 41% of working moms said being a parent made it harder to advance at work, compared with 20% of dads.
• Parents spend more time with the kids and less time maintaining the house due to less available time for both.  As compared to past surveys, however, Dads spend less time working, double the time on housework, and tripe the time time on child care.  Even still, the article noted how women still do much more, especially when it comes to raising kids, managing their schedules, caring for them when they are sick, and the like.  In addition, “Fathers and mothers are much more likely to equally share in doing household chores, disciplining children and playing with them.”

The article highlights the changing, or permanently changed nature of today’s modern family, which, from an overarching perspective, will continue to shape the divorce landscape for decades to come.  Litigants’ positions in divorce proceedings, as a result, will continue to evolve and, more likely than not, be less grounded in notions of the traditional family that is ever slowly, according to Pew, becoming a thing of the past.

____________________________________________________

 Robert Epstein is a partner in Fox Rothschild LLP’s Family Law Practice Group and practices throughout New Jersey.  He can be reached at (973) 994-7526, or repstein@foxrothschild.com.

Connect with Robert:  

*Photo courtesy of Google free images.

from NJ Family Legal Blog http://ift.tt/1kGZzJi
via IFTTT

Shareholder Thomas D. Giachetti Published Article in Investment Advisor

Shareholder Thomas D. Giachetti, Chair of the Securities Practice Group, authored the article SEC Clarifies RIAs’ Cybersecurity Obligations, which was published in the November issue of Investment Advisor.

The article explains how the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recent cybersecurity focus will affect RIAs. The SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections & Examinations (OCIE) released a Risk Alert in the spring of 2014, which announced that it would “conduct examinations of more than 50 financial institutions, including RIAs, focused on: cybersecurity governance; identification and assessment of cybersecurity risks; protection of networks and information; risks associated with remote customer access and funds transfer requests; risks associated with vendors and other third parties; detection of unauthorized activity; and experiences with certain cybersecurity threats.”

Most recently, in September 2015, OCIE released a follow-up Risk Alert which better elaborated on the “areas of focus” that would be examined during the cybersecurity process. Some of these areas would include “an RIA’s governance and risk assessment, access rights and controls, data loss prevention, vendor management, staff training and incident response.”

As a result, Mr. Giachetti recommended three steps that RIAs should take immediately in relation to the OCIE’s Risk Alert. This includes consulting with the business’s IT staff or IT vendors to ensure that the highest level of protection is or has been implemented, as well as adopting a proper cybersecurity policy that specifically addresses these recent Risk Alerts.

For more information, read the full article.

from New Jersey Law Blog http://ift.tt/1L6tLTA
via IFTTT

Summary Action to “Enforce Agency Orders” Cannot Proceed Where Agency Had Not Ordered Specific Relief

Bacon v. New Jersey State Dep’t of Education, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2015).  Many of us know about so-called “Abbott school districts,” districts in economically distressed urban areas that are named for the Abbott v. Burke cases, which have challenged New Jersey’s method of school funding as unconstitutionally insufficient as applied to those […]

from Appellate Law NJ Blog http://ift.tt/1SwND8K
via IFTTT

Stark & Stark Recognized in 2016 “Best Law Firms” Rankings

U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers recently announced the 2016 “Best Law Firms” rankings, and Stark & Stark has been recognized on Metropolitan Tiers 1, 2 & 3 in New Jersey. Stark & Stark is ranked in Tier 1 for Commercial Litigation, Family Law, Construction Litigation, Personal Injury Litigation for Plaintiffs, Real Estate Law and Workers’ Compensation for Claimants; in Tier 2 for Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency & Reorganization Law and Corporate Law; and in Tier 3 for Bankruptcy Litigation, Trusts & Estates Litigation, Personal Injury Litigation for Defendants and Trusts & Estates Law.

“We are very honored and pleased with our 2016 rankings by U.S. News & World Report,” said Lewis J. Pepperman, a senior partner and chair of the firm’s Business practice group. “These rankings underscore our dedication to client service and commitment to providing best in class legal services, across the board.”

According to Best Lawyers, the “2016 rankings are based on the highest number of participating firms and highest number of client ballots on record. To be eligible for a ranking, a firm must have a lawyer listed in The Best Lawyers in America, which recognizes the top 4 percent of practicing attorneys in the US. Over 21,000 attorneys provided almost 700,000 law firm assessments, and over 8,000 clients provided more than 47,000 evaluations.”

Additionally, “Ranked firms, presented in tiers, are listed on a national and/or metropolitan scale. Receiving a tier designation reflects the high level of respect a firm has earned among other leading lawyers and clients in the same communities and the same practice areas for their abilities, their professionalism and their integrity.”

For more information about the selection process, please click here.

from New Jersey Law Blog http://ift.tt/1kdtHwn
via IFTTT

How to Terminate a Contract for Sale of Residential Real Estate

Conley v. Guerrero, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2015).  As a result of a settlement in New Jersey State Bar Ass’n v. New Jersey Ass’n of Realtor Bds., 93 N.J. 470 (1983), mod., 94 N.J. 449 (1983), contracts for the sale of residential real estate must contain a “three-day attorney review” provision, which permits […]

from Appellate Law NJ Blog http://ift.tt/1HumFYT
via IFTTT

TURKEYS, AND CHRISTMAS TREES, AND MENORAHS…OY VEY

Ah, Thanksgiving, Christmas and Hanukkah.  What many people generally consider to be the most important holidays of the year are upon us.  The time of year for being thankful, enjoying good food, football on Thanksgiving or basketball on Christmas, and celebrating with family another year gone by.  After almost eight years, this blog contains so many hundreds of posts that they frequently blur together for this writer, but one post written two years ago by Lauren Beaver about being thankful for what you have stands out if you want some inspiration this morning.

Thus, while one can only hope that the holidays bring minimal conflict and nothing but happiness for your family, oftentimes, especially for divorced or divorcing couples, conflict is front and center.  Interestingly, I have seen increasing conflict between parents as to even the Halloween holiday, but such issues generally pale in comparison to what transpires at the end of the calendar year.  I have written about holiday parenting time issues before, and, with Thanksgiving mere weeks away I thought it would be a good time for a brief refresher course so that you can address any issues now – before it is too late.

1.  Who has the kids and when? – Many parenting time agreements provide details down to the very minute of when the kids are with mom and when they are with dad, who is picking them up and taking them to the other parent’s house, and more.  Day before Thanksgiving, Thanksgiving Day, Thanksgiving weekend, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, the first night of Hanukkah, second night, third night, winter break…the possibilities and machinations are seemingly endless.

Many agreements, however, are far more general, perhaps agreed upon at a time with you thought you would have no issue in working out these issues with your former spouse on an annual basis.  Who gets to put Bobby to bed on Christmas Eve?  Who gets to open up gifts with lil’ Tammy on Christmas morning?  Who is lighting the menorah with Benny?   Now is the time to firm up the details, because any conflict may leave you with no choice but to bring the issue to a family court judge.

2.  What holidays will the children be celebrating? – Perhaps one parent celebrates Christmas and the other celebrates Hanukkah.  Now what?  While the law generally provides that the primary residential parent can have the final say in deciding what religion the children are raised in, there is, for the most part, no issue with the child being exposed to and celebrating both holidays.  This, however, may not sit well with both parents.  If the issue of religion and religious holidays are not addressed in your agreement or court order, try to work it out to avoid a holy war.  Otherwise, you may end up having a judge decide the religious issue for you, which is not a place where you want to be.

3.  Who is buying gifts for the kids?  Who is buying that Thanksgiving turkey or Christmas ham?    This type of issue typically arises when the holidays fall during a divorce proceeding, but oftentimes fall afterwards as well.  Perhaps the monied spouse refuses to give money to the dependent spouse for such items, and prefers to lavish his or her own gifts upon the children as a way to buy the kids’ affections.  I once had a case where the dependent spouse was not receiving her ordered support and, as a result, actually had to go before the court and ask for money to buy a Christmas turkey and gifts for the children.  Suffice it to say, the judge was horrified at such a situation.  Do not let it happen to you.

4.  Who is saying what to the kids about whom?  Again, this is supposed to be a time of year for celebrating, being thankful, enjoying family, and looking forward to a new year.  Do not let your kids become the epicenter of your conflict with your spouse or former spouse.  Do your best to avoid disparaging the other parent to the kids.  Do not let anyone else talk badly about the other parent, including grandma or grandpa who may no longer have that loving feeling for their former son or daughter in-law.  Stop yourself from getting into an argument with the other parent in front of the kids.  Keep in mind that the kids will remember these holidays for years, if not decades to come.

These are just a few of the issues that may arise at this time of year and some tips to avoid or address them.  Now is the time – and not the day before Thanksgiving when family court judges are often inundated with emergency applications because mommy refuses to bring Johnny to daddy’s house, or on Christmas Eve when daddy refuses to allow Sammy talk to mommy – to address these issues through amicable agreement or litigation.

____________________________________________________

 Robert Epstein is a partner in Fox Rothschild LLP’s Family Law Practice Group and practices throughout New Jersey.  He can be reached at (973) 994-7526, or repstein@foxrothschild.com.

Connect with Robert:  

*Photo courtesy of Google free images.

from NJ Family Legal Blog http://ift.tt/1NRFgmh
via IFTTT

Marriage Is an “Adaptive Economic and Social Partnership”; Even After You Have Been Divorced for 19 Years. How Retirement Impacts Present Alimony Obligations.

In the recent matter of Perreault v. Perreault, P.P. and R.P. were divorced in 1996, after 22 years of marriage. Following a hearing, the Court ordered R.P. to pay permanent alimony in the amount of $500.00 per week. Neither the April 29, 1996 Final Judgment of Divorce, nor the August 7, 1996 Order provided that alimony would beof limited duration or would terminate upon R.P.’s retirement. P.P. also received $28,239.48 or 50% of the marital share of R.P.’s federal pension.

At the time of the divorce, R.P. was employed by the Veterans Administration Hospital and earned approximately $118,000.00 per year. At the age of 55, he retired from this job and began collecting his federal pension. After R.P.’s retirement, he continued working for other companies and in 2007 he began a consulting business with his current wife. In November 2013, he retired at the age of 65.

In April 2014, R.P. filed a motion to terminate his alimony obligation to P.P. based upon his retirement, or in the alternative, to reduce his alimony obligation. R.P. certified that he had gross income in 2013 of $96,985 derived solely from his pension, and from that amount, $28,239.48 was paid to P.P. pursuant to the Court’s August 7, 1996 Order. R.P. argued that only $25,000.00 of the remaining amount, $68,745.52 ($96,985.00-$28,239.48 = $68,745.52), could be considered for alimony purposes, and this amount was insufficient to justify an alimony award. Additionally, R.P.’s Case Information Statement showed that he had no debt, $9,891 in monthly expenses (although slightly reduced by the trial Court) and $823,000 in assets.

The trial Court determined that R.P.’s income had decreased, but that he had accumulated substantial post-judgment assets separate from his current wife from which he could pay alimony. Of the $823,000 in assets listed on R.P.’s Case Information Statement, the trial Court reduced this number by more than one-half to account for joint ownership with his current wife. The trial Court also recognized that with regard to R.P.’s pension, $40,505.04 was representative of the non-marital portion, not $25,000.00 as set forth by R.P. Additionally, the trial Court noted that R.P.’s future social security payments and his current wife’s income would assist him in paying his expenses, thereby increasing his ability to pay alimony. In contrast, P.P. would be in “dire straits” without alimony. In conclusion, the trial Court reduced R.P.’s alimony from $500.00 per week to $375.00 per week. Both R.P. and P.P. appealed.

R.P. asserted that the trial Court erred by ordering alimony in the amount of $375.00 per week because the non-marital portion of his pension, which he argues is $25,000.00, does not justify an alimony obligation and the Court erred by including his assets in determining his ability to pay alimony.

With regard to R.P.’s pension, “when a share of a retirement benefit is treated as an asset for purposes of equitable distribution, the trial court shall not consider income generated thereafter by that share for purposes of determining alimony.” Innes v. Innes, 117 N.J. 496, 505 (1990) (emphasis added). “Conversely, the rule does not bar counting as income for determining alimony, that portion of the former spouses’ pension attributable to post-divorce employment, and therefore not subject to division as marital property at the time of divorce.” Steneken v. Steneken, 367 N.J. Super. 427, 437-38 (App. Div. 2004)(emphasis added).

What does this mean? It means that retirement assets that were equitably divided in a divorce (and other assets for that matter), cannot later be considered available for purposes of alimony post-judgment. In this case, since R.P.’s pension was equitably divided in 1996 when the parties divorced, the share that was equitably divided is not available for to consider his present alimony obligation.

However, any money contributed to his pension after the parties divorced, can be considered for purposes of alimony to the extent the post-divorce earnings enhance the value of the asset.

In order to determine the non-marital portion of the pension, the trial Court added P.P.’s 50% share to R.P.’s share of the same amount to determine that the martial portion was $56,478.96. The Court then subtracted this amount from the present value of $96,984.00 to calculate a non-marital portion of $40,505.04. The Appellate Division affirmed this calculation.

In addition, the non-marital portion of R.P.’s pension, the Court must then consider whether R.P. had other sources of income that justified the reduced alimony amount. To do this, a Court may consider the income generated by supporting spouse’s assets, but not the total value of the asset itself, when determining the supporting spouses ability to pay alimony. See Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408 (1999). Here, the trial court erred by considering the total value of R.P.’s assets, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Although not discussed in Perreault, a litigant who wants to terminate or modify their alimony obligation based upon retirement must begin their analysis with  N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j), one of the recent amendments to the alimony statute, which discusses how alimony may be modified or terminated upon the prospective or actual retirement of the obligor.

from NJ Family Legal Blog http://ift.tt/20wecQC
via IFTTT

Fresh & Easy, LLC Files for Chapter 11 in Delaware – Another Grocery Store Bankruptcy

The healthy but affordable grocery store chain, Fresh & Easy, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Wilmington, Delaware on Friday. The chain operates 97 stores in Arizona, California and Nevada. This, like the recent Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (“A&P”) bankruptcy case, is the company’s second Chapter 11 filing in recent years.

Bankruptcy documents filed on Friday named Amir Agam of FTI Consulting Inc. as the Chief Restructuring Officer. The documents listed the debtor’s assets as between $10 and $50 million, with debts between $100 and $500 million.

This recent filing should serve as a warning to property owners. Landlords need to ensure that their claims are assets and are protected in the bankruptcy case. Like the A&P case, there will most likely be a number of auctions and discrete sales of the leases. It is vital that landlords contact counsel and develop a plan for their next steps.

Stark & Stark regularly represents landlords and trade creditors in Chapter 11 proceedings across the country, including filings in New York and Delaware. Whether or not you contact our Commercial, Retail, Industrial and Multi-Family Practice Group, landlords and trade creditors are strongly encouraged to contact legal counsel immediately.

from New Jersey Law Blog http://ift.tt/1KXsqyq
via IFTTT

AVAILABLE REMEDIES WHEN A PARENT VIOLATES A CUSTODY OR PARENTING TIME ORDER

Clients with children often ask what can a court do if the other parent violates an existing custody or parenting time order.  The level of emotion and concern raised by such violations can be overwhelming and, oftentimes, victimized parents do not know what to do or where to turn.  Just a few of the issues and questions may be:

• When the other parent deprives me of seeing my child despite the terms of the parenting time schedule that we agreed to, can he or she be forced to pay a fine?
• If the other parent does not allow me to speak with my child on a “reasonable and liberal” basis as set forth in our agreement, can I file a motion with the court and have the person thrown in jail?
• What about when the other parent does not tell the school or the doctor that I am supposed to have access to all of our child’s records too, and am supposed to be notified of events, meetings, appointments, and the like?
• How about when the other parent decides to take our child to religious school, even though our agreement specifically says there will be no religious school?
• Can I force the other parent to pay my attorney fees for having to address these issues?  What is the other parent going to say?  Are the answers ever “black and white”?

While each situation poses its own unique set of facts and circumstances, where, as a result, the situation is almost never black and white or straightforward, there are options available when asking a court to address the situation.  I address two of the more widely utilized options below.

1.     Rule 1:10-3

Rule 1:10-3 of the New Jersey Rules of Court is the most commonly relied upon rule when one parent seeks the enforcement of a custody or parenting time order or agreement against the other parent.  The application is generally referred to as a “motion in aid of litigant’s rights” or a “motion to enforce litigant’s rights” and it is designed to remedy the specific violation of the order or agreement at issue.

Importantly, any sanctions imposed pursuant to Rule 1:10-3 are supposed to be “coercive, not punitive” in nature.  Thus, the mode of enforcement may even be of a monetary nature – perhaps a fine – or incarceration.  The fine may be of any amount deemed appropriate by the family court judge to coerce the violating party to comply with the order or agreement moving forward.  The offending party may also be required to pay for the moving party’s counsel fees.

2.     Rule 5:3-7

Rule 5:3-7 provides for potential “Additional Remedies” in the event of a custody and parenting time order/agreement violation.  Specifically, subpart (a) provides a court with no less than  ten (10) available options – which may be imposed in combination – in addition to those available under Rule 1:10-3:

• Compensatory time with the children.
• Economic sanctions, including but not limited to the award of monetary compensation for the costs resulting from a parent’s failure to appear for scheduled parenting time or visitation such as child care expenses incurred by the other parent.
• Modification of transportation arrangements.
• Pick-up and return of the children in a public place.
• Counseling for the children or parents or any of them at the expense of the parent in violation of the order.
• Temporary or permanent modification of the custodial arrangement provided such relief is in the best interest of the children.
• Participation by the parent in violation of the order in an approved community service program.
• Incarceration, with or without work release.
• Issuance of a warrant to be executed upon the further violation of the judgment or order.
• Any other appropriate equitable remedy.

Many factors will be at play when a court determines whether to implement any of the above-remedies, not the least of which is the opposition posed by the allegedly violating parent.  For instance, one of the most commonly seen defenses to an allegation that a parent is not seeing a child for parenting time is that the child does not want to go.  Well, then the question is, if that is even true – since shielding the child from the proceeding is ideal, especially for younger children – why doesn’t the child want to go?  Then the issue spiders out into a variety of other potential arguments, such as the child’s age, disparagement of the moving parent to the child by the violating parent, alienation, scheduled activities and more.

Ultimately, victimized parents need not sit idly by and watch as the other parent does whatever he or she wants with respect to custody and parenting time despite an existing order or agreement.  There are many options, and many available remedies, to help ensure that the violations stop before it is too late.

____________________________________________________

 Robert Epstein is a partner in Fox Rothschild LLP’s Family Law Practice Group and practices throughout New Jersey.  He can be reached at (973) 994-7526, or repstein@foxrothschild.com.

Connect with Robert:  

*Photo courtesy of meepoohfoto.

from NJ Family Legal Blog http://ift.tt/1MgLPQ9
via IFTTT

New Jersey’s Legalized Sports Betting Law

Bryan M. Buffalino, member of the Litigation and Employment Groups, authored the article Third Circuit Plans to Revisit New Jersey’s Legalized Sports Betting Law, which was published on NJ.com on November 2, 2015.

The article discusses the latest news regarding the State of New Jersey’s battles with legalized sports betting. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit announced that there would be a rehearing, en blanc, and thereby vacated the previous August 2015 decision in favor of the major professional and amateur sports leagues. “An en banc is a session where a case is heard before all of the judges of a court, or before the entire bench, rather than a panel selected from among them.”

In 2012, Governor Chris Christie signed legislation legalizing sports betting in New Jersey casinos and racetracks. In response, the “NFL, NBA, NHL, Major League Baseball and the NCAA” challenged this legislation in August 2012, and sued the State of New Jersey.

As Mr. Buffalino further explains, “Currently, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) prohibits state-sponsored sports betting in all but four states: Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana. New Jersey is trying to evade the ban by arguing that, so long as the state does not regulate the betting, the federal law does not prevent private casinos and racetracks from allowing sports betting in their facilities.”

You can read the full article by clicking here.

from New Jersey Law Blog http://ift.tt/20rSgGa
via IFTTT