Friday, October 31, 2014

Reimbursement of Child Support and Legal Fees Awarded post-Judgment

The recent Appellate Division case, Dickson v. Hansson, is a post-judgment dissolution case in which the Plaintiff, Abra Dickson, appealed from a 2013 Family Court order awarding her ex-husband, the Defendant Peter Hansson, counsel fees totaling $3,200 stemming from his successful Motion to enforce an earlier court order involving his over payment of child support. On appeal, the Plaintiff asserts that the counsel fees were not warranted because she did not "act in bad faith," and the court failed to properly apply Rule 5:3-5(c). The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. in 2012, the Family Court ordered a modification of the Defendant's child support obligation to recognize the parties' daughter's college expenses. In the order, the court terminated the Defendant's child support obligation affective August 2012, based upon provisions in the parties' Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) regarding the Defendant's obligation to pay 100% of his daughter's college expenses. After the order was issued, the Defendant's attorney asked the Plaintiff for a refund of a few months of child support payments that the Defendant made prior to the issuance of the court order in the amount of $2,826. The Plaintiff responded by stating that the money was gone because she gave it to their daughter who spent it on expenses. In 2013, the Defendant filed a Motion to enforce the prior court order to get back the money that he over paid in child support and requested counsel fees. The Family Court judge ordered that the Plaintiff refund the Defendant $2,826 in child support that he paid and awarded the Defendant $3,200 in counsel fees. The Plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the lower court and held that "an allowance of counsel fees and costs in a family action id discretionary" but requires the court to consider the factors set forth in Rule 5:3-5(c). Eaton v. Grau, 368 N.J. Super. 215, 225 (App. Div. 2004). The Appellate Division did not receive any information provided to the trial court when it calculated the attorney's fee award from the Plaintiff and therefore the court was in no position to overturn that portion of the Family Court's ruling. Further, the court found no abuse of discretion in the Family Court's ruling. It found that the Plaintiff intentionally failed to comply with the court's order directing repayment to the Defendant, and taking the unreasonable position that the child support should be reimbursed by her daughter and not the Plaintiff herself. The court determined that the Plaintiff's decision to give the child support money to her daughter did not relieve her of the obligation to refund the overpayment. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your child support obligation it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification, divorce, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Equitable Distribution of Pension Reversed on Appeal

In the recent Appellate Division case, Krupinski v. Krupinski, the Court reversed the Family Court's decision denying Mr. Krupinski's Motion to terminate his alimony and directed the trial court to provide an order for an exchange of discovery in a post-divorce equitable distribution dispute over a party's pension. Mr. Krupinski appealed from the lower court's decision because his ex-wife, whom he divorced in 1990, was continuing to receive a large portion of his teacher's pension through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which entitled his ex-spouse to the marital portion of his pension. When the parties divorced, Mr. Krupinski was earning $45,000 a year. After the divorce, he acquired advanced degrees and eventually got a job working for the school administration. When he retired his pension was based upon a yearly salary of $132,000. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b), "when a share of a retirement benefit is treated as an asset for purposes of equitable distribution, the court shall not consider income generated thereafter by that share for the purposes of determining alimony." D'Oro v. D'Oro, 187 N.J. Super. 377, 454 (Ch. Div. 1982). In the current case, the Appellate Court found that the Family Court erred in denying Mr. Krupinksi's Motion to terminate his alimony obligation without making an initial determination that his pension benefit had increased because of his post-divorce education and training. According to the court, the Motion judge was required to identify which portion of Mr. Krupinksi's pension shared by his ex-spouse was a joint effort of the parties during their marriage and which part was due to his post-divorce efforts. Based upon this determination, the post-divorce increase in Mr. Krupinski's salary should be excluded from the equitable distribution of the marital asset. The Appellate Division ultimately held that the case should be remanded to the Family Court for the establishment of a discovery schedule to determine whether or not there are material issues of fact in dispute warranting an evidence hearing with regard the distribution of the marital asset. The equitable distribution of assets and alimony are of the most emotional and complex aspects of a divorce. If you are involved in a battle over the division of marital property, assets, or debts or alimony it is extremely important that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about equitable distribution, alimony, contested divorce, spousal 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.

Friday, October 3, 2014

Limited Duration Alimony Award Appealed By Husband

In the recent post-judgment case, Manduley v. Perez-Manduley, Jesus Manduley, appealed from a Family Court award of four years of limited duration alimony totaling $3640 a year to his ex-wife, Defendant Ana Perez-Manduley. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Family Division. The parties in this case were married in 2005 in the Dominican Republic. After their nuptials, the Plaintiff returned to New Jersey where he found work as a trash collector. The Defendant remained in the Dominican Republic to work as a nurse's assistant because she was not an American citizen. During that time, the Plaintiff sent money to the Defendant to assist her with her living costs. Eventually, she moved to the United States where the parties lived in New Jersey. The marriage never bore any children. The Defendant was dependent on her husband when she lived in the Dominican Republic and although she worked as a home aid in America, the Plaintiff paid the vast majority of the household expenses. At the divorce trial, the Defendant requested an award of four years of limited duration alimony at $500 per month totaling $6,000 a year. The Plaintiff stated that he would agree to pay some alimony if the city that employed him agreed to allow him to work overtime, but otherwise alimony should not be awarded. The Family Judge ruled that the Plaintiff was to pay the Defendant limited duration alimony in the amount of $3640 per year and that she would receive her marital share of his pension. The Plaintiff appealed from this judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. The Appellate Court found that the trial judge's decision regarding alimony was consistent with the proofs that were presented at trial and properly made pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(c). Both parties are parties of limited means and because the Plaintiff provided primary support for the family during the marriage he should have to pay modest alimony. Further, the four year term of the alimony award was considered to be fair for a seven year marriage. The award equitably served the purposes of limited duration alimony under the law. Gnall v. Gnall, 432 N.J. Super. 129, 150 (App. Div. 2013). If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your alimony or child support obligation it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about alimony, divorce, child support, equitable distribution, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.