Party's Successive Post-Judgment Motions To Change Divorce Agreement Are Denied

In a recent New Jersey case, Dunbar v. Woods, the parties entered into a property settlement agreement ("PSA") and a custody and parenting time agreement when they divorced in 2010, and since that time the Plaintiff (husband) has made multiple, successive post-judgment motions to modify the terms of the agreement. All of the Plaintiff's motions to change the terms of the PSA have been denied by the court because they require a showing of a change in circumstances that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate. The Plaintiff appealed from the last Family Court order denying his request for a modification. The parties in his case were married in 2008, one day after executing a prenuptial agreement. The Plaintiff filed for a divorce in 2009 upon moving from New Jersey to Louisiana. The Defendant gave birth to the couple's twin children in 2009. In 2010, the the parties entered into the original PSA that is at issue in this case. At that time they were represented by legal counsel and the Plaintiff was unemployed. In Plaintiff's numerous post-judgment motions to significantly modify the agreement, he has requested multiple forms of relief. He has asserted that the PSA was the product of fraud and deception because the Defendant overstated her child care expenses in her case information statement (CIS). He sought to have the PSA vacated and his child support obligation reduced. The Defendant submitted cross motions indicating the Plaintiff had violated litigant's rights for not abiding by the terms of the PSA and seeking court orders denying his motions to modify the agreement. In the final order, for which the Defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, the court order denied all of the Plaintiff's requests and awarded the Defendant counsel fees in the amount of $2,100. In a statement attached to the final order the Judge specified that in order to modify the terms of the PSA the Plaintiff would have to show "a substantial change in circumstances . . . that renders the agreement no longer fair or equitable to enforce." Further, the judge specified that claims for relief requesting modification of child support under Court Rule 5:5-4 require a copy of both prior case information statements (CIS) and updated versions of the document reflecting current tax returns and other financial statements to support any claim that there is a substantial change in circumstances. In this case, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any of these documents. Finally, the court opined that the Plaintiff should be aware of the consequences under Court Rule 1:4-8 of filing multiple frivolous law suits. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision and order and noted that the Plaintiff's argument lacked any merit. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your property settlement agreement, divorce judgment, or 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 modifications, divorce, prenuptial agreements, property settlement agreements, visitation & custody, child 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.

Child Support Case Appealed Because Judge Did Not Articulate Decision

Recently, a New Jersey case regarding the post judgment modification of a child support order was reversed because the Family Court Judge did not properly articulate his decision consistent with court rules. In Lombard v. Lombard, a Family Court judge addressed issues concerning the ongoing child support, child support arrears, and college contributions for the Plaintiff and Defendant's two children. The Defendant, William Lombard originally filed a notice of motion to modify his child support obligation and to vacate his arrearage. The Plaintiff, Bridget Lombard, who represented herself in this case, submitted a cross motion seeking the enforcement of the child support order. In September 2012, the Family Court held a hearing to address the aforementioned issues. The hearing was neither a plenary hearing or a hearing that allowed for oral argument. The judge issued an order based upon his consideration of the facts and relevant law dating back to September 10, 2012, which was memorialized in his two page decision on this matter. On appeal, the Appellate Court vacated the Family Court judge's decision. A forty page transcript of the Family Court proceeding revealed that the judge stated that he "would like to avoid a hearing for a couple of reasons. Number one, [he] [didn't] want to do it. Number two, it [would] cost [the parties] time and money." Next, the judge administered the oath to the Plaintiff and asked her questions about her Case Information Statement (CIS), pursuant to Rule 5:5-2. Upon hearing her response, the judge recalculated her monthly expenses. The judge then determined that the Defendant had been overpaying his child support payments "for some time," and vacated $2,000 worth of arrears, but did not articulate how he arrived at this decision, which he was required to do pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23a, which bars retroactive modification of child support in most cases. The Appellate Division vacated the Family Court's decision holding that Rule 1:7-4(a) requires that a court "find the facts and state its conclusions of law . . . on every motion decided by a written order hat is appealable as of right." This rule was not satisfied by the Family Court judge in this case because the Appellate Court could not figure out how the Family Court judge arrived at his decision. Further, the court held that where multiple submissions by the parties agreed on virtually none of the facts, a plenary hearing is required. See Segal v. Lynch, 211 N.J. 230, 264-65 (2012). Disputes regarding child support can be of the most important in family law because child support money is critical for the welfare of the children of divorced parents. If you are involved in a child support dispute it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information on child support, post judgment modification, alimony, divorce, 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.