Motion For Alimony Reconsideration Not A Matter Of Right

In Ackerman v. Freitag, the Plaintiff appealed from a Court Order issued in 2014 that denied her unopposed Motion for reconsideration regarding her request for an award of alimony based upon changed circumstances and an increase in child support. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Family Court in holding that a Motion for reconsideration is not a matter of right. The parties in this case divorced in 1999. At that time, they executed a property settlement agreement (PSA) that included a waiver of "any and all rights for alimony which either may have against the other, now and in the future." In 2012, the Plaintiff's license to practice medicine was suspended and she could no longer work in her field. She filed numerous Motions seeking relief based upon this life event and the negative financial impact that it had on her life. All requests for relief were denied. The judge based his denial on the fact that the medical board had concerns regarding the Plaintiff's mental health and required her to submit reports from mental health professionals attesting to her ability to continue to work. The Plaintiff failed to submit any documentation. Due to this, the judge ruled that the Plaintiff was voluntarily unemployed and denied her requests for relief. The Plaintiff then filed two subsequent Motions for reconsideration, both of which were denied for the same reasons. The Plaintiff appealed. According to the Appellate Division, the Orders that the Plaintiff appealed from sought reconsideration of prior Orders entered by the court. A Motion for reconsideration is governed by Court Rule 4:49-2 and is a matter to be exercised in the trial court's discretion. Capital Fin. Co. of Del. Valley, Inc. v. Asterbadi, 398 N.J. Super. 299, 310 (App Div.) certif. denied, 195 N.J. 521 (2008). It is not appropriate merely because a litigant is not happy with a decision of the court that he or she should be able to reargue a Motion, instead such relief "should be utilized only for those cases which fall into that narrow corridor in which either 1) the Court has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the Court either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence." D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990). The Appellate Division found that the Family Court judge provided thoughtful consideration to the Plaintiff's Motions and properly denied them. Being that the laws governing alimony have recently been changed, 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 or child support obligation 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 the DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Motion For Reconsideration of Equitable Distribution Of Home Denied

In the recent Appellate Division case out of Morris County, Abdalla v. Assadourian, the Plaintiff, Fatima Abdalla, appealed from a 2013 Court Order that denied reconsideration of the part of the Order dealing with the equitable distribution of the parties' former marital residence. The previous Court Order directed that the proceeds received upon the sale of the home were to be divided equally amongst the parties, after the Defendant, Hovsep Assadourian, remitted $15,600 to Plaintiff in alimony arrears from his share of the proceeds. The Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's denial of the Plaintiff's request. The parties in this case were married in 1973 and subsequently obtained a divorce in 2003. The parties did not memorialize a property settlement agreement (PSA) and the Plaintiff's attorney retired and destroyed her file. The parties did not agree on the substance of their settlement so a hearing was held to discern the specifics. The Plaintiff testified that she did not understand her divorce proceedings because she is Arabic and did not have an interpreter at the time of her divorce. She claimed that she was unaware who was supposed to pay the mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the marital home but that she never made such payments since her divorce yet she continued to live in the home with the parties' two sons. The Defendant testified that he was under the impression that the house was to be sold immediately after the divorce and the proceeds divided equally. Both parties were in their 60's at the hearing and both were unemployed. At the conclusion of the hearing the judge ruled that the marital home was to be sold immediately. The Plaintiff refused to participate in the sale and in 2012 the judge appointed a listing agent and ordered that the parties sign the listing agreement within 10 days. Soon thereafter the judge appointed an attorney to act as a signatory to executed the listing agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff and assessed $3,000 in counsel fees against her. The Plaintiff's attorney filed a Motion for reconsideration in 2013. The Motion was filed more than five (5) months after the judge first ordered the home sold, which was wall beyond the non-enlargeable twenty (20) day time period as prescribed in the court roles. N.J.C.R. 4:49-2; N.J.C.R. 1:3-4(c). The trial judge denied the Motion for reconsideration because it was untimely. A Motion for reconsideration is addressed to the "sound discretion of the [c]ourt, to be exercised in the interests of justice." Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996). Reconsideration should be utilized only for those cases which fall into that narrow category in which either 1) the court has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the court either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence. Id. The Appellate Court held that the Plaintiff sought reconsideration because she alleged she would be able to find new evidence to convince the judge to change the decision. The judge viewed her Motion as a stall tactic because the Plaintiff made clear by her behavior that her intention was to not cooperate in the sale of the home. The trial judge exercised sound discretion in denying the Plaintiff's Motion for reconsideration. The equitable distribution of assets is 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 it is extremely important that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about equitable distribution, post-judgment modification, 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.

Motions for Reconsideration in NJ Family Court

Due to the highly sensitive nature of family court matters, one or both of the parties is often unhappy with the decision of the judge in their matter. A party unhappy with the judge's decision has the right to seek reconsideration of that decision by following the appropriate guidelines and procedures. Two critical issues in deciding whether to seek reconsideration are burden of proof required to justify reconsideration and the timeliness of the Motion for Reconsideration. The controlling New Jersey Court Rule 4:49-2 states that the Motion must be served within 20 days of the service of judgment on all parties and must state the specific basis on which the Motion is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling decision which the party making the Motion believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has made an error in judgment. Courts often see Motions for Reconsideration because a party is unhappy with the judge's decision but there are occasions upon which there are pertinent facts or decisions overlooked in the initial hearing or there may simply be an error the judge's decision. In light of the fact that the instances in which a Motion for reconsideration is granted are rare, such Motions must be carefully drafted. Such Motions should only be sought after serious consideration is given to the matter and the likelihood of success seems strong. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are seeking reconsideration of a Family Court decision, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to determine the likelihood of meeting the criteria and in order to file timely. For more information on reconsideration, modification, alimony, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership, custody, child support or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.