Emancipation Granted And Alimony Increase Denied

Dripps v. Dripps, is an appeal from a Family Court Order issued pursuant to the parties post-judgment divorce Motions with regard to alimony and emancipation. The Defendant, ex-wife, moved before the court for an increase in her alimony. The Plaintiff, ex-husband, brought a Cross-Motion for relief which included the emancipation of the parties' two (2) children. The Family Court issued an Order denying an increase in alimony, granting the emancipation of the children, and denying the Motion for reconsideration. The Defendant appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Family Division. On appeal, the Defendant essentially sought to re-litigate the property settlement agreement (PSA) that was incorporated into the parties' final judgment of divorce. Specifically, the Defendant contested the Family Court's failure to increase her alimony and the grant of emancipation of her children. According to the Appellate Court, on appeal, legal issues involving the interpretation of a contract are subject to plenary review. Vosough v. Kierce,437 N.J. Super. 218, 241, 97 A.3d 1150 (App. Div. 2014), certif. denied, 221 N.J. 218, 110 A.3d 931 (2015). "A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts" are not entitled to "special deference" on appeal. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Twp. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378, 658 A.2d 1230 (1995). However, the Family Court's findings of fact should be upheld "if they are supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence on the record" and they are not "so wide of the mark that a mistake must have been made." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279, 914 A.2d 1265 (2007). When a Motion or a Cross Motion is brought for enforcement or modification of a prior Order or Judgment, a copy of the Order or Judgment sought to be enforced or modified shall be appended to the pleading filed in support of the Motion. N.J. Court Rule 5:5-4. Further, when a Motion is brought for the entry or modification of an Order or Judgment for alimony or child support based upon a showing of changed circumstances, the pleading filed in support of that Motion shall have appended to it a copy of the prior Case Information Statements (CIS). Id. The Defendant failed to submit the prior Judgement of Divorce (JOD) and PSA and failed to submit the requisite CIS, and therefore the Appellate Division found that the court properly denied her Motion. With regard to the emancipation, one of the children was twenty-three (23) and the other twenty-two (22), working and had not attended college for three (3) semesters. According to the Appellate Court, the circumstances of the children at the time of the hearing clearly met the parties' PSA definition of emancipation and public policy favors settlement of litigation. Bistricer v. Bistricer, 231 N.J. Super. 143, 151, 555 A.2d 45 (Ch. Div. 1987). An agreement to settle litigation is a contract, which like all contracts freely entered into, should be honored and enforced absent fraud or other compelling circumstances. Brundage v Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575, 601, 951 A.2d 947 (2008). Therefore, the decisions of the Family Court were affirmed. 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 emancipation status of your children 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.

Reduction In Child Support After Incarceration For Arrears

In Solomon v. Solomon, the Defendant appealed from a 2013 Family Court post-judgment Order that granted the Plaintiff's Motion for reconsideration to compel the Defendant to pay substantial child support arrears from his 50% share of his 401(k) or IRA and the proceeds from the sale of a timeshare property. The parties in this case were married in 1996 and had three (3) children. They executed a property settlement agreement (PSA) in 2006 which was incorporated into their final dual judgment of divorce on the same day. The PSA required the Defendant 1) to pay the Plaintiff $300 a week in child support, and $325 per week in alimony for five (5) years; 2) divide the Defendant's 401(k) equally between the parties; and (3) divide the parties' ownership and usage of their timeshare property equally. In 2007, the court assigned to the Plaintiff an amount equal to 50% of the value of the Defendant's IRA and found that the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's rights by willfully failing to turn over to her half of the 401(k) in accordance with the provisions of their PSA. In 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to seven (7) years in prison. Subsequent to his entering into the PSA but before his incarceration, he was required to pay $35 per week toward support arrears. While he was incarcerated, the Defendant submitted an application to reduce his child support payments to $5 a week, to terminate his alimony, and to terminate his payment towards arrears. He argued that his incarceration amounted to a change in circumstances. In 2011, a Family Court judge denied the Defendant's request to decrease his child support payments, but suspended the enforcement of his support obligations pending his release. By consent, the Defendant's alimony obligation was terminated retroactive to 2008. In 2011, the Defendant was released to a work house. In 2013, the Family Court issued an Order pertaining to his child support obligation to which the Defendant moved for reconsideration. The judge who heard the Motion arguments, granted the Defendant's Motion for reconsideration and ordered that 1) the Defendant maintain his 50% interest in the 401(k); 2) the parties continue to share ownership of the timeshare, 3) the parties submit current case information statements, and 4) denied the Defendant's request to stay his existing child support obligation. In the interim, the Defendant's child support obligation was increased due to a cost of living increase and another judge ordered that the Defendant pay $35 a week towards his $90,358.64 arrears. In response, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for reconsideration which was granted and the Defendant was ordered to pay half of his 401(k) or IRA toward his child support arrears and to convey his interest in the parties' time share to the Plaintiff to put towards his arrears. This Order also reduced the Defendant's child support from $366 week to $66 and ordered that he pay an additional $100 per week ward his arrears. The Defendant appealed arguing for a strict enforcement of the terms of the PSA. According to the Appellate Division, "Marital agreements are essentially consensual and voluntary and as a result, they are approached with a predisposition in favor of their validity and enforceability." Massar v. Massar, 279 N.J. Super. 89, 93 (App. Div. 1995). Yet, in this case, the court was guided by its long-standing view that the " . . . obligation to provide child support 'is engrained in our common law, statutory, and rule-based jurisprudence.'" Colca v. Anson, 413 N.J. Super. 405, 414 (App. Div. 2010). "Child support is the right of the child and responsibility of both parents, not a child won or lost by the custodial parent from the non-custodial parent." Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 591 (1995). When considering all guiding principles that inform child support decisions and its standard of review, the court was satisfied that the lower court enforced the parties' PSA to the children's best interests and therefore affirmed the decision of the Family Court. If you anticipate that it may be beneficial to you to seek a post-judgment modification of your 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 modification, child support, alimony, divorce, 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 of an attorney.

Post-Judgment Motion For College Tuition Is Denied

White v. White, is a 2015 post-judgment modification involving a Plaintiff who petitioned the court to compel her ex-husband, the Defendant, to reimburse her and their son for loans that the Plaintiff and the child used to pay for his college education. The Plaintiff appealed the decision of the Family Court which denied her initial Motion, filed in 2012, to compel the Defendant to reimburse her and her son for the aforementioned loans. After being married for six (6) years and having two (2) sons the parties agreed to divorce. The divorce was granted pursuant to a judgment of divorce that granted custody of the children to the Plaintiff, set forth the Defendant's child support obligation, and incorporated the parties' agreement concerning the equitable distribution of their property. The record reflected that the Defendant did not have contact with either of his children from 1998 through the time the initial Motion was filed in 2012. In 2008, the parties' youngest son entered college and graduated in 2011. In 2012, nine (9) months after the parties' child graduated college the Plaintiff filed a Motion seeking retroactive child support effective May 2009 through December 2011 and an Order directing the Defendant to pay for the non-emancipated child's college education as well as a loan that the Plaintiff has used for that purpose. The court denied the relief requested. The Appellate Court found that it was required by Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 546 (2006) to consider whether the Defendant had been involved in the college selection process at all. Further, the court noted that the Defendant was disabled and wondered whether or not it was fair to retroactively place the burden on him to inquire as to whether or not his children were entitled to any veteran benefits - as he was a veteran - to assist in the payment of college expenses. Relying on Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 535 (1982), Gac v. Gac, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) the Appellate Division ruled that waiting until the child graduated from college was fatal to the Plaintiff's application for retroactive contributions to the loan that she took out. Courts "should balance the statutory criteria of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) and the Newburgh factors, as well as any other relevant circumstances, to reach a fair and just decision whether, and if so, in what amount, a parent or parents must contribute to a child's educational expenses." Gac v. Gac, surpa, 186 N.J. at 543. Being that it could not be determined exactly when the Defendant first learned that his son was attending college and why the Defendant was estranged from his son (and therefore not involved in the college selection process) the court was not willing to reverse the decision of the lower court. The issue was whether a non-custodial parent can be held liable to a child for the amount of educational benefits that would have been available from a non-parental source had the parent timely notified the child or child's custodial parent. The Plaintiff cited to no authority to support the imposition of such liability and therefore the court was not prepared to impose such. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your divorce judgment it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification , equitable distribution, divorce, alimony, 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.

Wife Must Pay Ex-Husband's Counsel Fees After Filing Frivolous Post-Judgment Motions

n the recent Appellate Division case, Doll v. Doll, the Plaintiff, Deborah Doll, appealed from a 2012 Family Court Order that compelled her to pay $1,809.50 to her ex-husband, Defendant Peter Doll, due to the expenses he incurred in opposing post-judgment Motions that she filed frivolously. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. The parties in this case were marred in 1994 in the state of Florida and had one child, a son, together. Subsequently, they got divorced in 1997. In 2000, the Defendant was awarded residential custody of the parties' son after a lengthy custody and child support battle that began in 1996. At that time, the Plaintiff was ordered to pay child support to the Defendant for the benefit of their son. In 2004, it had been established that Florida retained jurisdiction over New Jersey concerning all issues regarding visitation and custody. Even though New Jersey did not have jurisdiction over the child support and custody issues of the case, the Plaintiff continued to file Motions for relief in New Jersey. In 2008, the Plaintiff filed a Motion in New Jersey to re-establish jurisdiction within the state from Florida, a Family Court judge noted that the Plaintiff's Motion was frivolous and if she continued to ignore the prior Court Orders the court will impose sanctions upon her to deter her conduct pursuant to Rule 1:4-8 3(c). Notwithstanding the fact that New Jersey court declined to hear her Motions on three (3) prior occasions for lack of jurisdiction, the Plaintiff filed a Motion in New Jersey again in 2012 to stay the enforcement of a Child Support Order. The Defendant filed a Cross Motion for counsel fees and sanctions. The judge granted the Defendant's Motion and the Plaintiff appealed from this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, holding that the Family Court judge appropriately cited Rule 4:42-9(a)(1), N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, and all of the relevant case law to allow for the award of counsel fees in Family Court cases. The Appellate Court held that there was no support in the court record for the Plaintiff's argument that the Family Court judge abused her discretion in her decision. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your parenting time, custody arrangement, 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 modification, parenting time, child support, custody and visitation, 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 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.