Party Seeks Judge's Recusal After Post-Judgment Modifications Denied

The a recent post-judgment modification case, Hoffman v. Hoffman, the Defendant, Bruce Hoffman appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order which denied his Motion to recuse the Family Court judge and also denied his request that the court require the Plaintiff, Frances Hoffman, to provide him with a Case Information Statement (CIS). The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. The parties in the case were married in 1981 and obtained a legal divorce in 2000. The Final Judgment of Divorce incorporated the parties' Property Settlement Agreement (PSA). Following the divorce, the Defendant instituted many post-judgment actions against Plaintiff usually to terminate or modify his child support and alimony obligations. All of the Defendant's Motions were denied. In the case at hand, the Defendant filed a Motion in 2013 requesting the recusal of the Family Court judge and require the Plaintiff to provide him ". . . with her completed CIS with attachments within [three] days." The judge denied the Motion and provided a written statement detailing her reasons for doing so. In her statement, the judge stated that the Defendant sought her recusal because she had previously denied "hearing his request for [reimbursement of] $1,363,800.45." The judge found that this "denial is not a basis for a recusal." Further, she held that her prior involvement in the Defendant's case did not prevent her from producing a fair and unbiased hearing or judgment. Concerning the Defendant's request for the Plaintiff's CIS, the judge held that the Plaintiff submitted her completed CIS to the court and requested that it remain confidential, but did recognize that without access to the document the Defendant may not be able to prove that a modification of his child support or alimony obligation is warranted. In balancing the equities, the judge stated that she "wanted to review the financial information submitted so that [she] could excise irrelevant matters before demanding the parties exchange information," as the Defendant had harassed the Plaintiff with over fifty filings and appeals since 2001. Therefore, the judge denied the Defendant's Motion "at [that] time" to permit her review of the materials. The Defendant appealed. According to the Appellate Court, the disposition of a recusal Motion is "entrusted to the 'sound discretion' of the trial judge whose recusal is sought." Panitch v. Panich, 339 N.J. Super. 63, 66 (App. Div. 2001). Recusal is appropriate "when there is any . . . reason which might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably lead . . . the parties to believe so." R. 1:12-1(g). Further, "Bias cannot be inferred from adverse rulings against a party." Strahan v. Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. 298, 318 (App. Div. 2008). The Appellate Court found no abuse of discretion in the Family Court judge's denial of the Defendant Motion for recusal. Next, the Appellate Court dismissed the Defendant's appeal from the trial court's denial of his request for the Plaintiff's CIS because it is "well settled that a judgment, in order to be eligible for appeal as a final judgment, must be final as to all parties and all issues." R. 2:2-3(a)(1). The Family Court judge's decision was interlocutory until she reviewed the financial information. If you are seeking 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, 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 intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

In Child Relocation Case, Appeal Is Only Possible After An Adjudication

In the recent post-judgment matrimonial case, Russitano v. Russitano, John Russitano appealed from a 2012 Court Order that directed action based upon his ex-wife's Motion to relocate the parties' children to Alabama and recalculate his child support obligation. The Appellate Court could not rule on appeal because the Family Court Order did not issue a final disposition on issues involved with the case. The parties in this case were married in 2000 and three (3) children were born of the marriage. On June 27, 2011, they were divorced pursuant to a Final Judgment of Divorce with their own negotiated Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) incorporated. In 2012, the Defendant, Melissa Russitano, filed a Motion with the court to relocate with the children to Alabama and to modify the parties' PSA to increase John's child support obligation. John filed a cross-motion seeking a recalculation of his child support obligation and to enforce the parenting time provisions contained in the PSA. After hearing oral argument, the Family Court judge issued an order directing that the parties engage mediation to attempt to resolve the relocation issues and the custody and parenting time issues. The judge also ordered that John's child support obligation be re-evaluated based upon his three most recent pay stubs. John appealed from this Order. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the lower court holding that, although John disagrees with his ex-wife's request to relocate to Alabama with their children, he failed to challenge the lower court's order referring the parties to mediation or the determination to hold a plenary hearing on the removal of the children if the parties are unable to reach a decision. The Appellate Court concluded that the Family Court judge's order on this issue was not a final disposition of the issue at the time that the appeal was filed because the court had never ruled on Melissa's Motion requesting permission to relocate with the parties' children. As such, a party is required to seek leave to appeal according to Rule 2:5-6(a), and neither party did so. As required under Rule 2:2-3(a)(1), the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to consider appeals from "final judgments of the Superior Court trial divisions." In all other cases, jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory matter is only granted upon leave of the court. Rule. 2:2-4. Therefore, this claim was dismissed. Next, regarding the child support issue, the Family Court is given substantial discretion to determine child support awards and other support obligations based upon the ruling in Foust v. Glaser, 340 N.J. Super., 312, 315 (App. Div. 2001). In this case, the Appellate Division found no reason to disturb the ruling of the Family Court as there was no basis to do so as the lower court's decision to order a recalculation of the obligation was appropriate. Disputes regarding child relocation and child support can be of the most important in family law because of the substantial impact that decisions regarding these issues will have upon the lives of the parties and their children. If you are involved in a child relocation or child support dispute it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information on child relocation, child support, post judgment modification, divorce, 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.