Motion To Enforce Equitable Distribution Of Tax Liability

In Lewis v. Lewis, a post-judgment case to enforce of litigant's rights, the Plaintiff appealed from a Court Order that required her to pay debt owed to the IRS when it was unclear whether the court was provided with the IRS's determination that granted her innocent spouse relief. The Appellate Court remanded the case back to the Family Court for reconsideration. The parties were married in 1996 and divorced in 2006. Their property settlement agreement (PSA) submitted with their final divorce judgment included the following language: "With respect to certain outstanding Internal Revenue Service debt, on account of 2004 income, the parties agree . . . each shall be responsible and pay, when as due, fifty (50% of this debt . . . ." In 2014, the Family Court held that the Plaintiff was in violation of litigants' rights for failure to pay her portion, including interest and penalties. The Plaintiff filed an appeal. A ruling on enforcement Motions in matrimonial actions must be "reviewed for abuse of discretion, with deference to the expertise of Family Part judges." Costa v. Costa, 440 N.J. Super. 1, 4, 111 A.3d 97 (App. Div. 2015). According to the Appellate Court, spouses who file joint federal income tax returns are held jointly and severally liable for any amounts due. 26 U.S.C.A. § 6013(d)(3). "Innocent Spouse" relief provisions in the IRS Code offer a narrow exception to this, under 26 U.S.C.A. § 6015(b), a spouse may seek relief if the spouse establishes that in signing the tax return the spouse did not know, and had no reason to know, there was an understatement of tax attributable to erroneous items of the other spouse, and that it would be inequitable to hold the spouse liable. On appeal, the Plaintiff attached IRS documents that indicate that she was granted innocent spouse relief by the IRS. She claims that the Defendant filed his Motion to enforce the PSA even though he knew she had been granted innocent spouse relief. The Appellate Division remanded the case back to the Family court solely to allow the Plaintiff the opportunity to file a Motion for reconsideration in the court consistent with Court Rule 4:49-2, and holding that such a Motion shall be considered timely if it is filed within twenty (20) days after service of the opinion on the Defendant. If you believe that a post-judgment modification to settlement agreement regarding equitable distribution, alimony, or any other issue may be beneficial to you it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification, equitable distribution, child relocation, 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 if an attorney.

Mother Wins Custody Appeal After Husband Violates Order

In the recent Appellate Division case, Luyster v. Colucci, the Plaintiff, Jennifer Luyster, appealed from a 2013 Court Order denying her Motion to Enforce Litigant's Rights against the Defendant, James Colucci, to enforce a court ordered parenting time schedule. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded the decision of the lower court back for a hearing on the Motion. The parties in this case were married in 1997 and two (2) children were born of the marriage in 2000 and 2002 respectively. In 2003, the parties obtained a final divorce judgment which incorporated a Consent Order that defined custody and parenting time. The parties were to share joint custody of the children with the children living with the Plaintiff as the parent of primary residence. Further, the agreement specified that the Defendant was to have the children for two (2) weeks each summer. In 2013, the Plaintiff filed a Motion with the court requesting that it find that the Defendant was in violation of litigant's rights for interfering with the parenting time schedule because he retained the children for longer than his agreed-upon summer parenting time. The trial court issued an Order in September 2013 denying the Plaintiff's Motion as moot because the summer was over and therefore the issue of summer parenting time was no longer resolvable. The Plaintiff appealed from this decision arguing that the court erred by not making a determination as to whether or not the Defendant's conduct violated litigant's rights and the parenting time schedule. The Appellate Division held that the trial court erred in deciding that the Motion to enforce litigant's rights was moot because "summer vacations [were] over." The Appellate Court found that in addition to a Motion to enforce litigant's rights under N.J. Court Rule 1:10-3, additional remedies are available for violations of custody and parenting time Orders, including compensatory time with the children, economic sanctions, court-ordered counseling, and modification of the custodial arrangement pursuant to N.J. Court Rule 5:3-7(a). Ultimately, the fact that the summer was over when the trial court heard the Plaintiff's Motion did not prevent the court from addressing and remedying any violation that may have occured. Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127, 133 (2006); P.T. v. M.S., 325 N.J. Super. 193, 208 (App. Div. 1999). The Appellate Division agreed with the Plaintiff's argument on appeal and reversed and remanded the decision of the Family Court for a hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion to enforce litigant's rights. Child custody and parenting time 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 a modification of your current child custody arrangement it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, parenting time, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Which State Has Jurisdiction in Post-Judgment Matters?

A New Jersey resident mother and a California resident father were involved in a motion to enforce litigant's rights regarding a New York divorce in Spierto v. Spierto. The mother sought, within the New Jersey courts, to enforce the terms of the parties New York divorce requiring the father to contribute to the son's college costs. Both the mother and son lived in New Jersey but the father was a resident of California. Because the divorce took place in New York, not New Jersey, the father petitioned the court for a dismissal of the motion based on the fact he was a CA resident and never was a NJ resident and therefore he claimed NJ had no jurisdiction over him. The NJ trial court concluded that through the father's contacts with NJ through his relationship with the wife and son, NJ had jurisdiction over the father. The trial judge also determined that NY no longer had continuing jurisdiction over the matter based on the fact that neither of the parties nor the child continued to reside in NY. Although the NJ Appellate Division did not reverse the findings regarding jurisdiction over the matter being within the NJ court, the court did remand the matter to the trial judge for specific findings as to the nature, time and extent of the father's contacts with NJ, including parenting time in order to determine whether NJ had jurisdiction over the father. If you are facing or considering a post-judgment motion, you should consult an experienced family law attorney to protect your rights. For more information on divorce, dissolution, litigant's rights, child support, alimony or other family law matters in NJ, visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney in legal matters.