Ex-Spouse Files For Post-Judgment Modifications Over Health Insurance Reimbursement

On February 10, 2014, in Moyer v. Brogden, the Appellate Division decided a case involving an ex-spouse who petitioned the court for a post-judgment modification of her divorce judgment which required her to reimburse her ex-husband for health insurance costs which were incurred after their divorce. The parties in this case were issued a dual judgment of divorce with stipulations of settlement in 2008. In the stipulations that were incorporated into their divorce it was provided that the parties would each be responsible for "all health coverage for himself and herself." In 2012, the Plaintiff filed a motion seeking various forms of relief and the Defendant filed a cross-motion seeking an order requiring the Plaintiff to reimburse him for $11,639.10 that the Defendant had incurred for premiums paid for the Plaintiff's continued health coverage after the parties were officially divorced in 2008. The Plaintiff asserted that following the divorce she did obtain her own health insurance, but in 2010 while being treated by a chiropractor, the office accidently used the insurance information on file which reflected the Defendant's policy information. Further, the Plaintiff claims that this could have been avoided if the Defendant was diligent in removing her from his policy. The trial court ordered the Plaintiff to reimburse the Defendant for the healthcare fees, notably because she failed to assert or prove that she made an attempt to update her insurance information with her new heath care provider so the proper insurance company could have been billed for the professional services she admitted to receiving. The Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's ruling and awarded the Defendant the reimbursement fees that he was seeking. In its holding, the Appellate Court ruled that the Plaintiff's arguments lacked sufficient merit to warrant further discussion and the lower court's decision was amply supported by the evidence in the record and by the applicable legal principles. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your divorce judgment, alimony award, or child support obligation it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modifications, divorce, alimony, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Divorce Rates Rise As Economy Improves

According to a recent study conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of contested divorces or uncontested divorces that were filed over the past few years has dramatically increased when compared to the averages during the years immediately following the 2008 economic crisis. In 2012, (the most recent year studied) the number of divorces that were filed across the country rose to 2.4 million, a number which has steadily risen since the economic recession. The U.S. Census Bureau's investigation uncovered a correlation between the rising divorce rate and the strengthening economy. The report speculates that filing for a divorce results in the immediate need for the parties to procure separate housing which simultaneously generates finances that seem to have an overall beneficial effect on the national economy. In addition, divorced individuals are more likely to continue to work and seek out as many hours as possible as a means to maintain their lifestyles. Divorcing couples, typically, will no longer have the benefit of sharing living expenses with their soon to be ex-spouses and therefore either diligently remain in the workforce or persistently re-enter the workforce. Although this may have an advantageous affect on the national economy, studies show that that becoming single once again may prove to add to the expenses for the individuals who are divorcing. The cost of living for a single person is usually greater than it is for married couples because single individuals do not get some of the social benefits that married couples enjoy such as shared heath care, living expenses, and state and federal tax breaks. It is impossible to predict how divorce rates will be affected if the national economy continues to strengthen over time as certain variables can only be studied by looking at the longitudinal trends over time. Filing for a contested or uncontested divorce can be both confusing and emotionally difficult. Usually, doing so begins a process that will dramatically alter the lives of all of the parties involved and therefore no one should engage this process unless he or she is well informed regarding the process and the law. If you are involved, or anticipate that you will become involved, in a contested or uncontested divorce or it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information on contested divorce, uncontested divorce, alimony, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and is in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Can Purposeful Underemployment Affect Child Support Obligations?

Recently, the NJ Appellate Division rendered a decision in Oliver v. Oliver, a post-judgment matrimonial case regarding the issue of modifying a parent's child support obligation. The parties in the case were married in 2002, separated in 2009, and divorced in 2010. During their marriage, the Defendant ex-wife, gave birth to a daughter who is currently 12 years old. Before their divorce was finalized the Defendant worked in the collections department for a private company. She claimed that she lost her job in 2009 because she was frequently late. The Plaintiff, her ex-husband, alleged that the Defendant purposely lost her job to place herself in a better position to get increased child support. According to an order issued at the time of the parties' divorce, the Plaintiff was required to pay $115 per week to the Defendant in child support. At that time, the aforementioned sum was based upon the Plaintiff's salary of $100,100 per year and the Defendant's income of $68,333. In 2012, the Defendant filed a motion with the court requesting an increase in child support because she had lost her job for a duration of time and when she finally got a new job in collections she was only earning $30,000 annually. The Plaintiff answered the Defendant's motion, citing that the court should still use $68,333 as the Defendant's income because she had intentionally lost her job and failed to show that she even tried to get a job making a similar salary. The Family Court granted the Defendant's request for an increase in child support and increased the Plaintiff's weekly obligation from $115 to $181 based upon her reported annual salary of $30,000. The Plaintiff appealed this decision citing that the court failed to consider his claim that the Defendant intentionally did not seek or accept work for a long period of time and then accepted a position making substantially less than her potential. The Appellate Court reversed the Family Court's decision and remanded the case back to the court to provide parties with a full explanation of its finding and legal conclusions. According to the Appellate Court, Rule 1:7-4(a) specifies that "the court shall . . . find the facts and state its conclusions of law thereon . . . on every motion decided by a written order that is appealable as of right." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fisher, 408 N.J. Super. 289, 300-01 (App. Div. 2009). In this case, the Appellate Court found that the Family Court did not make specific findings regarding the Plaintiff's argument that the Defendant was intentionally underemployed. Disputes regarding child support can be of the most important in family law because child support money is critical for the welfare of the children of divorced parents. If you are involved in a child support dispute it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information about child support, alimony, divorce, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Mentally Ill Mother Did Not Neglect Children In DYFS Case According to Appellate Court

In New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. C.F., the Appellate Court reversed the lower Family Court's finding that a mother, who has a chronic mental illness, abused or neglected her children. In April of 2012, a New Jersey Family Court held in a Title 9 complaint citing that C.F. had abused and neglected her two children. The case originated in 2011 when DYFS received a referral from the local police department citing that C.F.'s behavior was out of control as she was "throwing things, breaking things, screaming, ranting and raving." The police took C.F. to a local hospital where she was admitted into the psychiatric ward. She was thereafter referred for outpatient treatment. At the time, C.F. reported to a DFYS caseworker that she was hearing voices. As part of the DYFS investigation, a court appointed psychiatrist evaluated C.F. and diagnosed her with "bipolar disorder or possibly an agitated depression with psychosis." The psychiatrist noted that he thought that C.F. would be noncompliant with treatment based upon her history of noncompliance with treatment and her lack of understanding regarding her mental illness. Throughout her life, C.F., was hospitalized for psychiatric reasons at least five times beginning in 1994. She has been prescribed multiple medications for to treat her illnesses. In 2012, the Family Court determined that DYFS satisfied its burden by a preponderance of the evidence that C.F. neglected her children because of her chronic mental illness, her lack of insight into her illness, her refusal to take her medication regularly, her history of noncompliance with treatment, the necessity of police intervention into her family, and her numerous hospitalizations for mental illness. C.F. appealed this decision arguing that DYFS failed to prove that she neglected her children by a preponderance of the evidence because she did not act willfully or wantonly to put her children at risk. In its decision, the Appellate Court found that the narrow issue in the case was whether or not the facts in the record demonstrated that C.F.'s mental illness caused her to fail to exercise a minimum degree of care by recklessly creating a harm or the substantial risk of harm for her children under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b). The Court reversed the Family Court's finding that C.F. abused or neglected her children by holding that the record simply did not show that C.F. ever harmed or threatened to harm the children and that her history of mental illness did not demonstrate a substantial risk that she may harm her children. In its opinion, the Court noted that C.F. had the benefit of living with the children's father and her parents who were all aware of her mental health issues and could intervene to ensure the children were not in danger. In reversing the lower court's decision the Appellate Court ordered that C.F.'s name be removed from the Central Child Abuse Registry. Child neglect and abuse are very serious issues. A court finding of abuse and neglect can have an extremely negative effect on a person's life including the ability to obtain certain jobs and being restricted from places where children frequent. If DYFS has become involved with your family or you expect that DYFS will become involved with your family it is extremely important that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about DYFS, custody & visitation, abuse and neglect, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Recent Expansion of Federal Same-Sex Marriage Rights and Benefits

This week the United States government expanded the recognition of same-sex marriage rights to include situations such as bankruptcies, survivor benefits, and prison visits. This reflects yet another way that gay and lesbian legal rights are continuing to spread throughout the federal and state governments. This expansion of rights includes the remaining 34 U.S. states that still have not legalized gay marriage. In these states, the aforementioned federal benefits will only be extended to areas where the federal government has jurisdiction. For instance, a homosexual couple who was legally married in New Jersey can now become involved in a federal bankruptcy case in any of the 34 states who have not yet recognized marriage equality. Before this week, the federal government could challenge a same-sex couples' joint bankruptcy in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage. This new expansion of federal benefits also impacts LGBT married partners' ability to gain visitation rights for spouses incarcerated in federal prisons. It also extends survivor benefits for spouses of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty as well as the legal benefit and right to not be compelled to testify against a spouse in federal courts. The legal landscape for gay and lesbian individuals throughout the nation is changing at breakneck speeds. As social benefits and privileges continue to expand for homosexual people, everyone needs to remain up-to-date on how the expansion of marriage equality and social benefits legally impacts their lives. As the number of same-sex marriages increases in New Jersey, unfortunately and inevitably, so will the number of same-sex divorces and all of the issues associated with a legal divorce such as child custody, parenting time, equitable distribution, child support, and alimony - just to name a few. If you are a gay or lesbian couple who is dealing with any of these legal issues it is extremely important that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information about same-sex marriage, same-sex divorce, custody, child support, alimony, parenting time, equitable distribution or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney

Facebook and Family Law Statistics Are In

Most people overlook the old adage 'a picture tells 1,000 words' including how much alimony you can afford, what kind of people your kids will be around when they're with you, whether you may be cheating on a spouse or partner and many other facts you may be unwittingly disclosing for your spouse to use in a contested divorce. Facebook has made it so easy to meet new people and also find out what your spouse is doing that the social media site is responsible for 20% of all divorces in the United States. Computers leave trails for spouses and former spouses to find out about indiscretions and other information simply by turning on the computer, plugging an entry into a Google search or filling in information when autofill takes over and inserts your "other email address." The next time you wonder why your former spouse or partner is filing another motion for more alimony just think of all the pictures of your well-appointed home, your elaborate vacations and your new car that you have posted on Instagram while claiming you only make $30,000 per year. In our law practice, we used to be provided with printouts of emails then cell phone texts but now we are routinely provided printed pages from Facebook and Instagram for divorce, criminal and even business matters. With the aid of social media every citizen with a computer or smart phone is a private investigator. Even deleted messages can be recovered with the right amount of time and energy or, in the case of a high net worth divorce where someone liquidated substantial marital funds, a subpoena. Maybe you are wondering "how could someone be so careless as to post something incriminating on Instagram?" Follow that thought with the memory of the last time you laughed as you opened an email where a friend had tagged you in a picture they or someone else posted. Even if you delete your entire Facebook account you may have already deleted your marriage, child custody, overnight visitation or bank account if you have posted or been posted online. If you are facing alimony, divorce, custody, visitation, parenting time, child support or other issues as a result of social media you should obtain experienced legal counsel immediately in order to limit any damage that you may be exposed to. For more information regarding family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of legal counsel.

Same-Sex Marriage Offers Tax Equality

As marriage equality is spreading across the country, GLBTI couples are beginning to realize the many benefits that same-sex marriage affords them. One of the most important and advantageous benefits of the legalization of same-sex marriage is the favorable tax treatment for the parties in the event of a divorce. Before New Jersey began permitting homosexual couples to legally wed, gay and lesbian couples were only allowed to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership. Although New Jersey's laws regarding the dissolution of a civil union or domestic partnership are virtually the same as the laws that govern a heterosexual divorce, the laws of the federal government are very different. For instance, when same-sex parties end their NJ civil union, alimony or spousal support payments are typically categorized as gifts for the purposes of filing federal taxes which exposes the parties to a higher tax liability than legally married couples. Further, the exchange of assets between parties in equitable distribution was considered a taxable event under federal tax laws. On the other hand, in the context of legalized same-sex marriages, alimony payments result in equalized tax treatment for the parties. The party who is required to make alimony payments to his or her ex-spouse is permitted to take a federal tax deduction for their payments, which is a benefit for that party. The party receiving the alimony sum is required to file the payments as taxable income when reporting to the federal government. In addition, the exchange of assets and property during the equitable distribution phase of the divorce is not considered to be a taxable event under federal tax laws. Overall, as the number of states that recognize marriage equality continues to increase, many more homosexual couples whose legal marriages end in divorce will be able to realize some of the federal tax benefits that have been available to different-sex couples for decades. Whether a couple is involved in a same-sex or heterosexual relationship a divorce is a very complicated and emotional process. If you are a gay or lesbian couple who is battling in a same-sex divorce it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information about same-sex marriage, divorce, dissolution, alimony, equitable distribution or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney

Appellate Court Awards Custody to Plaintiff-Pastor in Custody Case

In the Appellate Division case, of H.L. v. M.M., a New Jersey Family Court denied the Plaintiff's petition for custody over an illegal immigrant from Honduras citing that the Plaintiff's application for custody was a sham directed at providing the boy with legal immigration status under U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J)(i)(ii). The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision. The Plaintiff in the case, H.L., is the pastor of a small church just across the American border. He appealed the decision of the Family Court denying him custody of F.D.M. F.D.M. is a boy who entered the United States illegally and was placed in the care of the Plaintiff following a stay at a detention center where he was being held by the Office of Refugee Resettlement in 2010. A hearing was held at which F.D.M. told the court that he walked across the border with his uncle who was turned away by immigration officials. H.L., the Plaintiff, is a pastor at the church in America where F.D.M.'s mother, Defendant M.M., is a member. M.M. contacted H.L. and specifically requested that he retrieve F.D.M. from the detention center. M.M. had illegally arrived in America in 2000 and being that she barely earned a living could not support F.D.M. Defendant D.M., F.D.M.'s natural father, was unable to be served in the action because his whereabouts in Honduras were unknown. In reversing the lower Family Court's decision and granting H.L. custody over F.D.M., the Appellate Court found that because F.D.M.'s father's whereabouts were unknown and evidence reflected that he had abandoned F.D.M. and because M.M. was unable to care for him in any way the Family Court Judge's ruling was made in error. The Court ruled that the lower court judge's holding was not based on adequate, competent evidence and did not support his legal conclusion. Therefore, the Appellate Division awarded the Plaintiff custody over F.D.M. Custody battles can be among the most heart-wrenching and difficult situations a person can become involved in. In addition, the issues that arise during contested custody disputes can be very complex. If you are engaged in a custody and/or parenting time dispute it is extremely important that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information about custody, visitation, parenting time, divorce, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.