Fleeing the Country to Avoid Alimony and Child Support

In Jonas v. Jonas, defendant Edwin Jonas, III appealed, for the eleventh time, the court’s decision in favor of Linda Jonas. Edwin Jonas, III was a prominent attorney who willfully refused to pay child support and alimony for decades, since his 1990 divorce, to the demise of his reputation and business. In his efforts to avoid payment, Edwin Jonas has removed his children from the country, lied to the court, fled jurisdiction and dissipated assets. The Defendant's appeal centers around the theme that he cannot receive a fair trial in Camden County Superior Court due to judicial prejudice against him. The Defendant's belief stems from the fact that he represented to the court that he had no intention of liquidating assets or leaving the country with the parties' children. Thereafter, Edwin Jonas, III left the country with the children, purchased a residence in the Cayman Islands and took steps to sell a convenience store he owned, causing title of several assets owned by the Defendant to be transferred into Plaintiff's name by Court Order. The idea was to create a constructive trust to ensure payment of alimony and child support. Rather than paying the sums due for support for a full twenty-eight years, the Defendant, is willing to file appeals and appear in court to try to seek an accounting from the Plaintiff. As a result of the Defendant's ongoing failure to acknowledge any wrongdoing and continue with his onslaught of appeals, the court denied the Defendant's motion. If your earnings, or those of your spouse, include commissions, bonus, expense accounts, profit sharing or other items which are irregular, it may make a substantial difference in what you pay or receive at the conclusion of your divorce. It is imperative that you consult an experienced divorce attorney to discuss your rights and obligations prior to filing for divorce. For more information about divorce, child support, alimony, property distribution or other family law matters visit DarlingFirm.com.

High Net-Worth Divorce Leads To Successive Post-Judgment Motions

In a high net-worth divorce, Robin Baskin, the defendant, filed a motion to enforce litigant's rights seeking child support and alimony arrears as well as medical expenses for the children. The parties entered into a negotiated property settlement agreement (PSA) at the time of their divorce which provided, among other relief, alimony to the defendant in the amount of $17,000 per month for 78 months and child support in the amount of $3,300 per month for the parties' 3 children until such time as the children were emancipated. The children often changed residence between the parties and 2 of the parties children had great difficulties in school, which the Plaintiff cited as being due to family conflict, and were enrolled in alternate educational settings at costs of up to $80,000 annually. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County ordered the plaintiff to satisfy all child support and alimony arrears as well as reimburse the defendant for the children's medical expenses but allowed the plaintiff a $20,000 credit for the plaintiff's expenses resulting from the children's difficult circumstances. The Honorable Thomas J. Critchley also awarded the defendant $12,000 in counsel fees associated with her motion. In Baskin v. Baskin, the NJ Appellate Division upheld the denial of the plaintiff's request for a retroactive modification in child support, which is barred by N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23(a), to the date that the children returned to his residence rather than the date of the filing of his cross-motion. Ohlhoff v. Ohlhoff, 246 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1991). The Appellate Division did determine that child support should be modified to reflect the change in custody wherein the plaintiff became the parent of primary residence and found the credit awarded by the motion judge to be unsupported by reasons as required under Heinl v. Heinl, 287 N.J. Super. 337 (App. Div. 1996). Without reasons set forth fully on the record, the Appellate Division has no basis on which to conduct a review. Finally, with regard to the defendant's counsel fees, N.J.C.R. 5:3-5(c) permits attorney fees in matters of child custody, support and motions to enforce litigant's rights. The motion judge determined that, as there were no substantial changes made in his decision, the plaintiff's motions were in bad faith but made no specific findings with regard to counsel fees. The N.J. Appellate Division found that the plaintiff was reasonable in seeking relief and vacated the counsel fee award to the defendant. The decisions made in divorce, by either the parties or the court in the event of trial, are long lasting and have significant consequences to both parties' and their children. When considering a modification, timing is crucial as you cannot obtain modification retroactively beyond the date of your application. If you have significant income or assets and are considering divorce or seeking a modification of your present child support, it is critical that you discuss your situation with an experienced divorce attorney. For more information about child support, custody, divorce, parenting time, visitation, alimony or other family law matters in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Equitable Distribution In Small Business Divorce Is Contested

In Hetherington v. Molinaro, a divorce involving a small businesss, the Defendant appealed from a trial court's confirmation of two arbitration awards, one setting the termination date of the marriage in the parties' divorce and the other one setting value and equitable distribution of a business formed and operated by the Plaintiff. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The parties in his case were married in 1996. In 1999, the Plaintiff established Hetherington Information Services, LLC ("HIS") and was the sole owner. In 2006, she stopped working at this company and started working for a company called AON. After the parties separated in 2008, the Plaintiff returned to HIS and expanded the business. In 2010, the Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce that did not go anywhere following a series of adjourned case management conferences. The parties both retained the services of forensic accountants to assess the value of HIS. The parties mutually dismissed the first complaint for divorce after deciding not to proceed in 2011. Later that year, the Plaintiff filed a second complaint for divorce and in 2012 the parties agreed to binding arbitration on the termination date of their marriage for equitable distribution purposes as well as the value of HIS. In 2013, in a written decision, the arbitrator made detailed factual and legal findings regarding the issues in his case. Pursuant to Portner v. Portner, 93 N.J. 215, 460 A.2d 115 (1983) and Painter v. Painter, 65 N.J. 196, 218, 320 A.2d 484 (1974), a divorce complaint generally marks the end of a marriage for equitable distribution purposes when the proceeding culminates in a final judgment of divorce. However, the arbitrator relied on Genovese v. Genovese, 392 N.J. Super. 215, 920 A.2d 660 (App. Div. 2007), which held that a marriage is deemed ended for equitable distribution purposes prior to the filing of a divorce complaint where the facts "provide incontrovertible evidence that the marital partnership terminated prior to the filing of the . . . complaint" . . . and where the "facts evidence more than a mere physical separation . . . ." Id. at 226-27. The arbitrator determined, by the parties' own admissions, the marriage ended by February 11, 2010 and set the termination of the marriage to that date for equitable distribution purposes. The arbitrator also awarded the Defendant with 25% interest in the value of HIS as of February 11, 2010 or $18,750. The Defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision to uphold the arbitrator's decision. According to the court, an arbitrator may "conduct an arbitration in such a manner as the arbitrator considers appropriate for a fair and expeditious disposition of the proceeding." N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-15(a). The arbitrator's authority includes the power of "determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of any evidence." N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-15(a). The court concluded that it found no basis to disturb the arbitrator's award as it was consistent with the arbitrator's broad authority to conduct the proceeding and the record sufficiently supported the final award. 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 pre- or post-judgment 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 divorce where a party owns a business, high net-worth divorce, equitable distribution, post-judgment modification, contested divorce, alimony, 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.

Complexity Of A High Net-Worth Divorce

In New Jersey, divorces are complicated proceedings for most people who have to endure them, but high net-worth divorces add a greatly increased level of complexity for those people who have significant wealth. High net-worth divorces involve a party or parties who have accumulated great wealth and assets. The reason that high net-worth divorces can become more complicated than other divorces is because these divorces usually involve substantial incomes, assets, investments, and liabilities. The laws of New Jersey require the equitable distribution of the assets and liabilities that were accumulated during the duration of the marriage. Therefore, it logically follows that for individuals who have more finances, more investments, more assets, and more liabilities than the average person, the more complex and difficult the divorce process becomes. Although each high net-worth divorce is different, there are some common issues that tend to arise in high net-worth divorces. Often, individuals who have acquired significant wealth are involved in a myriad of varying lucrative business arrangements as well as investment opportunities including stock options and deferred compensation plans. During equitable distribution, dividing these diverse assets and liabilities can become extremely complicated and require evaluations by specialized financial advisors and forensic accountants. Complicated retirement plan structures including pensions, 401k plans and other retirement plans that were contributed to during the term of the marriage or civil union are also subject to equitable distribution and require analysis and proper accounting. Further, investments such as options, REITs, tax sale certificates, real properties and others need specially trained accountants and other financial advisors to conduct current and future valuations to determine how these assets could and should be divided as a consequence of the parties' divorce. Beyond equitable distribution all other aspects of high net worth are magnified in complexity. For instance, issues concerning alimony and spousal support become more difficult to negotiate as the parties have become accustomed to an unusually high standard of living. In addition, after a specific income ceiling, New Jersey’s child support guidelines only serve as the starting point for determining the child support obligation and then other factors are considered to determine whether the child support amounts should go above the amount dictated by the standard guidelines. If you or your spouse or partner have amassed substantial wealth and are considering divorce, it is absolutely necessary for you to have an experienced family law attorney at your side to protect you and your lifestyle. For more information about high net-worth divorces, equitable distribution, alimony, child support and other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com and NJCivilUnionLaw.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.