Failure to Pay International Alimony Obligation Results In Reversal Of Court Order

In the case, Heller v. Kuba, the Plaintiff appealed from a post-judgment court order that found that she was in violation of her ex-spouse's litigant's rights because she failed to pay alimony to him in accordance with a marital settlement agreement that was incorporated into their final divorce judgment. The order also awarded the Defendant attorney's fees. The parties in this case were divorced and after their divorce was finalized the Defendant decided to move out of the United States to Prague. Pursuant to this move, the Defendant directed the Plaintiff to forward his alimony checks to his new address in Prague. Over time, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff stopped sending her required alimony checks to him. According to the Plaintiff, she mailed the checks to the Defendant who did not cash them. The Plaintiff insisted that she did not cease sending checks to Prague and that she possessed records proving that she continued to send the money. The lower Family Court judge found that the Plaintiff's proofs were insufficient to show that the Defendant, had in fact, received his checks. The Appellate Division held that the Plaintiff's proofs were probative of her good faith effort to honor the provisions of her marital settlement agreement. Further, the court found that there was a genuine dispute on the record regarding whether the Plaintiff actually mailed the checks overseas, even though the Defendant also acknowledged that the Plaintiff may have mailed the checks. The lower court judge provided the Plaintiff with the opportunity to definitively prove that the checks were cashed or stop payment on any outstanding checks and pay the arrears by direct deposit before ruling that she violated the terms of the settlement agreement. According to the Appellate Court, if the Plaintiff did, in fact, mail the alimony checks to Prague, she could not have been in voluntary violation of the marital settlement agreement. Since it was not possible to resolve the question of whether or not the Plaintiff willfully violated the terms of the agreement, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order adjudicating that the Plaintiff was in violation of litigant's rights and the award of attorney's fees and remanded for a hearing to be held on the issues. 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 DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Post-Judgment Custody To Father Allows Child To Stay In Same School

In a recent Essex County post-judgment custody modification case, Stevens v. Shah, the Plaintiff, Jennifer Stevens appealed from a 2012 Family Court order that directed the parties to share joint legal custody of their child and awarded temporary physical custody of the child to the father, Amir Shah, so that the child could continue to attend the same school he had been in prior to the divorce. In August of 2012, an Essex County Family Court Judge issued an order directing that the Family Division conduct a best interests investigation as to the parties' child to assist in determining custody. Later, the judge held a hearing and took the testimony of the parties. After reviewing the best interests analysis and considering the testimony, the judge issued the aforementioned order. In the order the judge indicated that temporary physical custody of the child shall remain with the Defendant, in part, so that the child could remain in the Union school system. The Plaintiff was granted very liberal parenting time with her child. The judge stated that his decision was based upon the fact that when the court applied the best interest factors found in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c) - most elements were equal except that the child's continuity of education would be better served by allowing him to continue to go to school in Union, New Jersey. The Plaintiff appealed from this decision. The Appellate Division began its analysis by stating that a party wishing to modify a custody arrangement must demonstrate a "change in circumstances that affect the welfare of the child," according to the reasoning set forth in Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102, 105 (App. Div. 2007). After a showing of changed circumstances is made, the court must then decide whether the requested modification is within the best interests of the child. Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 317 (1997). To accomplish this the court must consider the best interest factors as set forth in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c) and must make a record "referencing the statutory factors it has considered and the reasons for its custody determination." J.A. v. A.T., 404 N.J. Super. 132, 145 (App. Div. 2008). In the current case, the Appellate Court was satisfied that all of the above mentioned requirements were satisfied. Although, it held that because its decision was grounded in the child's best interest of continuity for the kindergarten year, and since all other factors were determined to be equal, the Plaintiff was permitted to seek physical custody without asserting changed circumstances after the school year. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your divorce judgment regarding such issues as child custody, alimony, or your 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, child custody, divorce, alimony, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Easter and Passover Greetings

A blessed Easter and chag Pesach sameach from us to you.