Party Chose to Ask Forgiveness Rather Than Permission to Relocate

In A.J. v. R.J., custody of the parties’ children was transferred to defendant upon plaintiff’s failure to comply with a prior order concerning plaintiff’s relocation with the children. The parties married in 2008, and divorced in 2013. Two children were born of the marriage. The parties divorced with a negotiated marital settlement agreement, rather than a trial, with defendant receiving parenting time every other weekend and one weeknight overnight. Plaintiff was a tenured teacher in Elizabeth and Defendant resided in Union. Post-judgment, Plaintiff remarried and had another child. Due to Plaintiff’s family growing, they moved to Mount Holly. Plaintiff failed to obtain permission, from the Defendant or the court, to move the children after the Defendant notified her that he did not wish for the children to live so far away. Upon learning of the move, the Defendant filed an order to show cause to modify the judgment as to custody and to prevent the Plaintiff’s relocation. The trial judge granted the Defendant parenting time three weekends each month. Thereafter, a plenary hearing occurred and the trial judge ordered Plaintiff to relocate within fifteen miles of Union prior to the beginning of the upcoming school year. In making his decision regarding the Plaintiff’s ability to relocate with the children, the trial judge relied upon the factors set forth in Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001). Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the judge applied the wrong standard in his determination of her ability to relocate and that he changed the terms of the partied MSA by including a fifteen-mile rule where the parties had none. With regard to the imposition of the fifteen-mile limitation, pursuant to Ridley v. Dennison, 298 N.J. Super. 373, 381 (app. Div. 1997), Rule 5:3-7 and Rule 1:10-3, the court may craft remedies or measures to facilitate enforcement in the event an order is violated. As to the Judge’s use of the Baures factors, Baures no longer applies when a court is addressing relocation; rather, the court must consider N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. As the motion judge did not apply the correct measure in sanctioning the plaintiff, the appellate division reversed and remanded. If you are planning to relocate and believe that it may affect your parenting time arrangement, or you are seeking to prevent your children's other parent from relocating, it is critical that you seek an experienced family law attorney to represent you as misapplication of law can cause disastrous results for you and your children. For more information about relocating with children, divorce, alimony, child support or other family matters, visit DarlingFirm.com. To schedule a consultation with an experienced family law attorney now, call 973-584-6200. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Post-Judgment Action To Enforce PSA Over College Expenses

Daley v. Daley, is a post-judgment matrimonial matter in which the Defendant appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order that granted the Plaintiff's Motion to enforce and amended a provision of the parties' Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) dealing with the funding of their children's college education. The parties in this case were married in 1995 and got divorced in 2007. Two (2) children were born during their marriage and a PSA was incorporated into their divorce judgment in 2007. In 2013, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to enforce and amend a provision of the PSA that required the Defendant to provide her with annual fund balances and make required monthly payments to the children's college savings accounts for their education. In response to the Plaintiff's Motion the Defendant admitted that between 2009 and 2013 he had withdrawn $33,000 from the college accounts but he had repaid the sum prior to the 2013 filing of the Plaintiff's Motion. The Defendant also admitted that in 2008 he withdrew $29,100 from the accounts to pay his federal and state taxes and he had not yet repaid that amount and he claimed that although the accounts should remain an asset for the children's benefit, he was not prevented from making necessary withdrawals from this accounts under the PSA. The Family Court judge ordered that the Plaintiff be named the custodian of the children's college savings accounts and that the defendant repay the $29,100 within thirty (30) days. The Defendant appealed claiming that the Family Court judge erred in making the Plaintiff the custodian of the college accounts, amending the PSA concerning the use of the account funds, amongst other prayers for relief. According to the Appellate Division, with regard to the enforcement of the PSA, New Jersey Court Rule 1:10-3 "provide[s] a mechanism, coercive in nature, to afford relief to a litigant who has not received what a Court Order or Judgment entitles that litigant to receive." D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 407 (Ch. Div. 1990). "The particular manner in which compliance may be sought is left to the court's sound discretion." Bd. of Educ. of Middletown v. Middletown Twp. Educ. Ass'n., 352 N.J. Super. 501, 509 (Ch. Div. 2001). According to these standards, the Appellate Division found no basis to disturb the Family Court judge's decision to place the Plaintiff in control of the children's college savings accounts. Although the Defendant was an "owner" of the account, the PSA required him to make regular monthly payments into the accounts. Nothing in the PSA indicated that the parties ever intended that the Defendant would or could periodically withdraw funds from the accounts to pay his personal expenses. If you believe that a post-judgment modification to your settlement agreement regarding the provisions of the agreement may be beneficial to you to you should seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification, equitable distribution, alimony, child support or other family law matters in New Jersey visit the DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice if an attorney.