Custody and Parenting Time Conditioned on Reunification Therapy

William Iozia filed a motion for parenting time after failing to see his children for almost 2 years. Kelly Krzeckowski, the mother, entered into a consent order with Iozia calling for a custody and parenting time evaluation for both parents, reunification therapy for the father and the parties 2 children, and the possibility of a substance abuse evaluation for the father. The consent order also called for the parties to share the cost of the custody and parenting time evaluator equally. Iozia sought supervised parenting time until the evaluations could be completed and successfully completed the required substance abuse evaluation to obtain the supervised parenting time but Krzeckowski claimed the substance abuse evaluation was limited. Additionally, no reunification therapy had occurred and the parties, upon return to court, received an order reserving custody issues until reunification therapy was completed and ordering the father to pay for reunification therapy costs. After attempting reunification therapy for some time and changing therapists at the request of the mother, the situation broke down. The father sought a plan for supervised parenting to be followed by unsupervised daytime parenting and ultimately unsupervised overnights every other weekend. The mother requested another substance abuse evaluation of the father. The parties were instead ordered to comply with the prior order for reunification therapy and the father was ordered to undergo a drug screening at the mother's expense. The court denied both parties' counsel fees requests but included that, should either party fail to comply with the order, the non-compliant party would be responsible for the other party's counsel fees. Krzeckowski appealed the denial of her counsel fee request and, in Iozia v. Krzeckowski, the N.J. Appellate Division upheld the decision of the court below denying counsel fees finding that the original order failed to spell out certain details relating to reunification therapy costs which could have resulted in delay without fault of either party. Child custody cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for to establish custody, or for a post-judgment modification of your current child custody arrangement, it is critical that you consult with an experienced family law attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, post-judgment modification, parenting time, divorce, 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.

Alimony Motion Dismissed For Discovery Violations

Null v. Null involved an alimony matter on appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County. The parties married in 1978, had two children in 1982 and 1984 respectively, and were divorce in 2005. They entered into a negotiated property settlement agreement (PSA) at the time of divorce including permanent alimony from the Defendant to the Plaintiff in the amount of $6,000 per month based on his annual income of $175,000 with a formula for calculating increases and caps in alimony as Defendant's income fluctuated. In 2007, the Defendant unilaterally reduced his alimony payment to $5,000 monthly. Thereafter, a series of motions were filed resulting in the establishment of arrearages and discovery orders which the Defendant continuously ignored with the result of sanctions in the form of counsel fees to the Plaintiff, Lynn Null. The Defendant, William Null appealed portions of the family part order dismissing with prejudice his motion to terminate alimony, or reduce his obligation; vacating orders granting a plenary hearing and appointing a forensic accountant; ordering him to resume alimony payments, including arrears and counsel fees to Plaintiff; and denying his motion for reconsideration. Defendant cited abuse of discretion by the judge in the dismissal of his motion with prejudice. Plaintiff cross-appealed for a recalculation of the alimony arrearage. Although the "absolute sanction" of dismissal is to be utilized sparingly under Abtrax Pharm., Inc. v. Elkins-Sinn, Inc., 139 N.J. 499 (1995). The N.J. Appellate Division looked to Zaccardi v. Becker, 88 N.J. 245 (1982) which held that discovery rules are designed to facilitate and provide uniformity to litigation. Additionally, under Summit Tr. Co. v. Baxt, 333 N.J. Super. 439, 450 (App. Div.), cert. denied, 165 N.J. 678 (2000), courts have the authority to impose sanctions for violations that fly in the face of the rules. Rule 4:23-5 and Rule 4:23-2 permit dismissal with prejudice only after permitting a party opportunity to remedy the discovery violations. Casinelli v. Manglapus, 181 N.J. 354, 365 (2004) defined that the court must assess the "willfulness of the violation, the ability of [the party] to produce [discovery]," prejudice to the party not in violation and the length of time before trial. The Appellate Division reviewed the fact that in cases where a party persistently violated discovery obligations they found dismissal with prejudice to be appropriate. They found that the motion judge still did not know the Defendant's actual earnings after years of ongoing litigation and that the Defendant's actions were deliberately designed to cause that result. In light of the Defendant's willful and repeated violations, the N.J. Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal with prejudice. If you are facing divorce, alimony can have lasting and substantial consequences upon your future whether you are the obligee or the obligor. It is imperative that you obtain an experienced divorce attorney for your divorce or motion for modification in order to ensure that your rights are protected. For more information about divorce, alimony, child support and other family law matters visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Child Support Based On Imputed Income Raises Suspicions of Appellate Panel

A post-judgment order decreasing child support was entered in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, without a plenary hearing to dissatisfaction of both parties in Tuman v. Tuman. The order imputed income to the defendant, Michael Tuman, decreasing his child support payment to the plaintiff and requiring the defendant to pay plaintiff, Monica Tuman, a portion of what were found to be extraordinary child-related expenses. Monica Tuman appealed and Michael Tuman cross-appealed resulting in a remand of the matter for a plenary hearing on the disputed issues in the case. At the time of their divorce, the parties entered into a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) wherein both waived alimony and equitable distribution but the defendant, then reporting $40,000 in income from his small business, was required to pay $550 per week in child support, a substantial deviation from the Child Support Guidelines figure, to the plaintiff as well as 75% of the children’s unreimbursed medical expenses. Later, the plaintiff sought additional payment from Michael Tuman for Hebrew school, synagogue dues, day camp and other similar expenses. The matter required a plenary hearing to determine the scope of extracurricular activities contemplated in the child support payment established. The court held that the defendant was liable for payment of 1/3 of the expenses based on an income of $130,000 at that time. The court specifically avoided a “changed circumstances” analysis because neither party was actually seeking a modification in child support, only a contribution for additional expenses. Later, in the matter at hand, the plaintiff sought contribution from the defendant for their daughter’s activities, including driving lessons, car payments and college preparation costs, as well as an increase in child support due to a decrease in the defendant’s visitation and the defendant sought to reduce child support to a level within the Child Support Guidelines based on the failure of his business and a current income of $25,000 per year. hild Support Based On In its decision to remand the matter for a plenary hearing, the N.J. Appellate Division found that the judge’s questioning of the pro se plaintiff at length during an evidentiary hearing did not provide her adequate opportunity to prepare. The judge decreased child support to $404 per week but offered no logical reasoning as to why for the Appellate Division to opine on although the imputation of income is considered an “extremely fact-sensitive endeavor”. Caplan v. Caplan, 364 N.J. Super. 68, 88 (App. Div. 2003), aff’d, 182 N.J. 250 (2005). The appellate panel also found that it was inappropriate to determine certain extracurricular expenses were over and above the Child Support Guidelines without a plenary hearing. Decisions of the parties or the court in divorce matters have long-lasting implications for the parties and their children. If you anticipate that it may be beneficial to you to seek a post-judgment modification of a Court Order regarding a 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 modification, child support, divorce, 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.

Modify Your Alimony Obligation Before Retirement

In Mueller v. Mueller, a judge interpreted the legislative intent of modifications to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 to allow for pre-retirement anticipatory alimony modification. Ocean County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Jones held that the legislative intent was to allow for modification or termination of alimony obligations in the event that retirement is to occur in the near future and a detailed plan for actual retirement exists. Judge Jones found that there is a benefit in allowing a party contemplating retirement to understand fully what their actual alimony obligation will be prior to fully exiting the workforce. The judge set forth no specific time limits but suggested a 12 to 18 month timeframe for such motions. Judge Jones determined that Gordon Mueller's retirement, planned for 5 years following the post-judgment motion hearing, was too uncertain to warrant a reduction at the present time. If you are considering retirement but have an existing alimony obligation you now have an opportunity to determine what type of obligation you will face after retirement and whether you will be able to live the lifestyle you wish during retirement. For more information about post-judgment modification of alimony, child support, parenting time and other family law matters, visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

High Net-Worth Divorce Leads To Successive Post-Judgment Motions

In a high net-worth divorce, Robin Baskin, the defendant, filed a motion to enforce litigant's rights seeking child support and alimony arrears as well as medical expenses for the children. The parties entered into a negotiated property settlement agreement (PSA) at the time of their divorce which provided, among other relief, alimony to the defendant in the amount of $17,000 per month for 78 months and child support in the amount of $3,300 per month for the parties' 3 children until such time as the children were emancipated. The children often changed residence between the parties and 2 of the parties children had great difficulties in school, which the Plaintiff cited as being due to family conflict, and were enrolled in alternate educational settings at costs of up to $80,000 annually. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County ordered the plaintiff to satisfy all child support and alimony arrears as well as reimburse the defendant for the children's medical expenses but allowed the plaintiff a $20,000 credit for the plaintiff's expenses resulting from the children's difficult circumstances. The Honorable Thomas J. Critchley also awarded the defendant $12,000 in counsel fees associated with her motion. In Baskin v. Baskin, the NJ Appellate Division upheld the denial of the plaintiff's request for a retroactive modification in child support, which is barred by N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23(a), to the date that the children returned to his residence rather than the date of the filing of his cross-motion. Ohlhoff v. Ohlhoff, 246 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1991). The Appellate Division did determine that child support should be modified to reflect the change in custody wherein the plaintiff became the parent of primary residence and found the credit awarded by the motion judge to be unsupported by reasons as required under Heinl v. Heinl, 287 N.J. Super. 337 (App. Div. 1996). Without reasons set forth fully on the record, the Appellate Division has no basis on which to conduct a review. Finally, with regard to the defendant's counsel fees, N.J.C.R. 5:3-5(c) permits attorney fees in matters of child custody, support and motions to enforce litigant's rights. The motion judge determined that, as there were no substantial changes made in his decision, the plaintiff's motions were in bad faith but made no specific findings with regard to counsel fees. The N.J. Appellate Division found that the plaintiff was reasonable in seeking relief and vacated the counsel fee award to the defendant. The decisions made in divorce, by either the parties or the court in the event of trial, are long lasting and have significant consequences to both parties' and their children. When considering a modification, timing is crucial as you cannot obtain modification retroactively beyond the date of your application. If you have significant income or assets and are considering divorce or seeking a modification of your present child support, it is critical that you discuss your situation with an experienced divorce attorney. For more information about child support, custody, divorce, parenting time, visitation, alimony or other family law matters in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Proving Cohabitation Without Access To Necessary Evidence

Using Facebook posts by his ex-wife’s significant other to support his claims, Steven Robitzski claimed cohabitation of his ex-wife with another as a reason for reduction in his alimony obligation under the 2014 revisions to the alimony statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. Robitzski sought additional discovery from the plaintiff with regard to her finances and the court held that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of cohabitation that would be required prior to their compelling discovery from Lorraine Robitzski. The property settlement agreement (PSA) which the parties agreed to at the time of their divorce contemplated alimony of $2,500 monthly from husband to wife and contemplated certain circumstances, including the wife’s future cohabitation, as a reason for termination of alimony. Cohabitation, as defined in Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149 (1983), and Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (1999), contemplates a marriage-like relationship including “stability, permanency and mutual interdependence.” The plaintiff denied that she cohabitated with her significant other claiming he spends approximately 100 nights per year at her residence and that they maintain separate finances and residences. The plaintiff provided the defendant with bank accounts showing she paid her own bills for 2013 and 2014 without deposits from unknown sources. The judge found the Facebook postings to be inadmissible and of limited probative value in any event. The judge did however order the significant other to provide certain certification with regard to his living arrangements and finances as well as ordering the plaintiff ex-wife to provide proof of her own expenses and how they are met. On appeal, in Robitzski v. Robitzski, there was consideration of Konzelman with regard to whether the cohabitation criteria existing at the time of the divorce or the amended criteria would apply. In 2014, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 was modified to reflect the following criteria for a court to use when assessing whether cohabitation exists: (1) Intertwined finances such as joint bank accounts and other joint holdings or liabilities; (2) Sharing or joint responsibilities for living expenses; (3) Recognition of the relationship in the couple's social and family circle; (4) Living together, the frequency of contact, the duration of the relationship, and other indicia of a mutually supportive intimate personal relationship; (5) Sharing household chores; (6) Whether the recipient of alimony has received an enforceable promise of support from another person within the meaning of subsection h. of [N.J.S.A.] 25:1-5; and (7) All other relevant evidence. Also to be considered is the duration of the relationship. The 2014 amendments include a provision indicating they are effective from 2014 and do not modify prior agreements or orders. The N.J. Appellate Division looked to Landers v. Landers, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2016) and Spangenberg v. Kolakowski, 442 N.J. Super. 529 (App. Div. 2015) with regard to whether the 2014 amendments would be applied retroactively. The Appellate Division determined that it no matter which version of the statue was applied, the defendant failed to make a prima facie case for cohabitation and opined that even if the trial judge had allowed the Facebook postings regarding vacations and events the parties enjoyed together, there would not be a prima facie showing of cohabitation. The decision of the trial court was affirmed. In light of changes to the laws governing alimony and cohabitation, it is critical that you seek out the advice of an attorney to protect your rights an entitlements. If you think that it may be beneficial for you to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your alimony obligation based upon your ex-spouse's cohabitation with another person or for any other reason it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about alimony, divorce, post-judgment modification, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and is in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

As Man's Salary Plummets, Alimony Reduction is Awarded

William Bischoff sought to reduce his alimony obligation and terminate his obligation to maintain a life insurance policy for the benefit of his ex-wife, Diane Bischoff, or, in the alternative, to reduce the amount of insurance he was required to maintain. The result of the post-judgment motion was that Bischoff’s alimony obligation was reduced based on significantly changed financial circumstances, although the life insurance policy was kept in place in light of the judge’s finding that it was part of equitable distribution, rather than alimony, and that a change in William Bischoff’s circumstances did not justify a modification of equitable distribution decided long ago. However, Diane Bischoff was required to contribute more to the policy’s premium. In 2006, when the parties divorced, William Bischoff was making approximately $900,000 per year and their Property Settlement Agreement called for alimony in the amount of $153,900 on the first $600,000 of his earnings and one-third of the next $650,000. In 2009 a woman with whom William Bischoff had become romantically involved was arrested for insider trading and William Bischoff was later terminated from his employment. In 2012, the parties consented to a post-judgment modification of the alimony obligation to $2,500 per month with Plaintiff’s income imputed at $125,000 annually and Defendant’s at $20,000 annually. When Plaintiff’s income continued to fall, the within motion for reduction in alimony and termination of insurance was filed. In Bischoff v. Bischoff, the N.J. Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the court below on appeal finding no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge and lack of merit in Plaintiff’s claims on appeal. In light of recent changes in the way alimony is determined, it is very important that you seek out the advice of an attorney to protect your rights an entitlements. If you think that it may be beneficial for you to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your alimony obligation based upon a significant reduction in your income or for any other reason it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about alimony, divorce, post-judgment modification, 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.