Pendente Lite Support Pending Divorce

Pendente lite support is temporary support, established during the pendency of a divorce, intended to preserve the financial status quo, or marital standard, of the parties until equitable distribution and alimony are resolved, between the parties or by a judge, and a final judgment of divorce is obtained. The span of time between separation or the filing of a divorce complaint and actually obtaining a divorce can sometimes take years making pendente lite support a critical issue for both parties. Although the intent is to continue the status quo existing prior to the marriage and ensure an economically dependent party is not left destitute, pendente lite support often leaves both parties lacking. Expenses often increase during this time as there is typically another residence to support and, if there are children, the party vacating the residence must have adequate housing for themselves and the children or they will be in an inferior position when it comes to parenting time. Often, parties will separate but make efforts at resolution for long periods of time prior to filing for divorce. During this time, if things are amicable, the party who vacates the marital residence may simply obtain quarters adequate for sleeping and little more such as a spare room at a friend's residence, their old bedroom at their parent's house or similar. They will continue to provide the bulk of their income to the family for household expenses and be comfortable "getting by" for the interim. Unfortunately, this period of time can establish a precedent and, if a divorce complaint is filed, either the supported or supporting spouse can find themselves in a very difficult financial situation without enough assets for themselves if a judge decides a motion for pendente lite support using this period of separation as the model for the "marital standard." If you are considering divorce, prior to leaving your residence, you should consult with an experienced divorce attorney in order to discuss your needs, your family's needs and your financial situation. An experienced family law attorney can protect you from finding yourself with a pendente lite support order which will leave you financially destitute. For more information about divorce, child support, custody, emancipation and other family law issues in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Post-Judgment Action To Enforce PSA Over College Expenses

Daley v. Daley, is a post-judgment matrimonial matter in which the Defendant appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order that granted the Plaintiff's Motion to enforce and amended a provision of the parties' Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) dealing with the funding of their children's college education. The parties in this case were married in 1995 and got divorced in 2007. Two (2) children were born during their marriage and a PSA was incorporated into their divorce judgment in 2007. In 2013, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to enforce and amend a provision of the PSA that required the Defendant to provide her with annual fund balances and make required monthly payments to the children's college savings accounts for their education. In response to the Plaintiff's Motion the Defendant admitted that between 2009 and 2013 he had withdrawn $33,000 from the college accounts but he had repaid the sum prior to the 2013 filing of the Plaintiff's Motion. The Defendant also admitted that in 2008 he withdrew $29,100 from the accounts to pay his federal and state taxes and he had not yet repaid that amount and he claimed that although the accounts should remain an asset for the children's benefit, he was not prevented from making necessary withdrawals from this accounts under the PSA. The Family Court judge ordered that the Plaintiff be named the custodian of the children's college savings accounts and that the defendant repay the $29,100 within thirty (30) days. The Defendant appealed claiming that the Family Court judge erred in making the Plaintiff the custodian of the college accounts, amending the PSA concerning the use of the account funds, amongst other prayers for relief. According to the Appellate Division, with regard to the enforcement of the PSA, New Jersey Court Rule 1:10-3 "provide[s] a mechanism, coercive in nature, to afford relief to a litigant who has not received what a Court Order or Judgment entitles that litigant to receive." D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 407 (Ch. Div. 1990). "The particular manner in which compliance may be sought is left to the court's sound discretion." Bd. of Educ. of Middletown v. Middletown Twp. Educ. Ass'n., 352 N.J. Super. 501, 509 (Ch. Div. 2001). According to these standards, the Appellate Division found no basis to disturb the Family Court judge's decision to place the Plaintiff in control of the children's college savings accounts. Although the Defendant was an "owner" of the account, the PSA required him to make regular monthly payments into the accounts. Nothing in the PSA indicated that the parties ever intended that the Defendant would or could periodically withdraw funds from the accounts to pay his personal expenses. If you believe that a post-judgment modification to your settlement agreement regarding the provisions of the agreement may be beneficial to you to you should seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification, equitable distribution, alimony, 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 if an attorney.

Alimony Not Terminated In Spite Of Cohabitation

In Coshland v. Coshland, the Defendant appealed from a Family Court Order that denied his Motion to terminate his alimony payments because he claimed that the Plaintiff was cohabitating with her boyfriend. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court finding that the Plaintiff's boyfriend did not cohabitate but was a frequent visitor who did not economically benefit the Plaintiff. Following a twenty-seven (27) year marriage that yielded two (2) children, the parties divorced in 2011 pursuant to a Property Settlement and Support Agreement (PSSA). The agreement directed that the Defendant would pay $230 a week in alimony but stated that the obligation would terminate if the Plaintiff were to begin "residing with an unrelated person, or vice versa, where [the Plaintiff] is receiving and economic benefit, for a period of not less than 30 consecutive days." After the divorce the Plaintiff moved to a townhouse that was recently vacated by two of the Plaintiff's friends, K.C. and her brother J.C. The townhouse was individually owned by K.C. After the Plaintiff moved in, J.C. began to spend two to five nights a week at the townhouse. The Plaintiff and J.C. "attempted" a romantic relationship but both claimed at the time of the hearing that the relationship was platonic. When the Defendant suspected the Plaintiff of cohabitating with J.C. he hired a private investigator to gather information about the relationship. Between March and April 2013, the investigator observed the Plaintiff and J.C. arriving home from work together (they both worked at Shop-Rite) and the Plaintiff visited the residence seventeen (17) times in that time frame. The Defendant filed a Motion to terminate his alimony. The Family Court Judge denied the Motion and scheduled a plenary hearing to take place. At the hearing, the judge heard testimony from the private investigator, a real-estate expert, and the Plaintiff. After hearing the testimony, the judge issued an oral opinion denying the Defendant's Motion to terminate alimony finding that J.C. did not live at the townhouse and that the Plaintiff was not receiving economic benefit from his visits. The Defendant appealed. According to the Appellate Division, alimony can be modified if a party demonstrates a significant financial change since the alimony was first awarded. Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. Super. 552, 572, 66 A.3d 157 (App. Div. 2013). One type of changed circumstance is cohabitation by a former spouse. Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149, 155, 456 A.2d 102 (1983). Cohabitation is typified by a showing of a relationship "shown to have stability, permanency, and mutual interdependence." Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185, 202, 729 A.2d 7 (1999). Therefore, a former spouse residing with a significant other is not, by itself, enough to terminate alimony, further, there must be additional proof that the cohabitating spouse received some form of economic benefit from the cohabitation or the supported cohabitant "supports or subsidizes the other under circumstances sufficient to entitle the supporting spouse to relief. Reese, supra, 430 N.J. Super. at 557-58, 576; Gayet, supra, 92 N.J. at 153-54. Proving cohabitation creates a rebuttable presumption of changed circumstances. Ozolins v. Ozolins, 308 N.J. Super. 243, 248, 705 A.2d 1230 (App. Div. 1998). Accordingly, the burden of proof which is ordinarily on the party seeking modification, shifts to the dependant spouse to prove the lack of economic benefit and continued need for support. Id. at 248-49. In this case, the Appellate Division found that apart from proving J.C.'s frequent overnight stays at the Plaintiff's residence, the Defendant failed to present any evidence in support of an intimate relationship or economic benefit. Therefore, the Family Court's denial of the Defendant's Motion was affirmed. Being that the laws governing the issues involving alimony and cohabitation 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 obligation based upon your ex-spouse's cohabitation with another person 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 DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Appeal Of Default Divorce By Pro Se Party Unsuccessful

In Dippel v. Dippel, the Plaintiff appealed from a 2013 Final Divorce Judgment that was entered by default on the Defendant's Counterclaim because the Plaintiff failed to comply with the Rules of the Court. The Plaintiff instituted divorce proceedings in 2010 and in 2012 the court dismissed his pleadings without prejudice for failure to comply with discovery requests. In 2012, the court denied the Plaintiff's application to vacate the default judgment and allow him additional time to provide discovery. Later that year, the Plaintiff once again made an application to vacate his divorce judgment, which was denied. The court had advised the Defendant that she could proceed with default proceedings based upon her Counterclaim because the Plaintiff did not comply with discovery. A trial was held in 2013, at which, the trial judge thoroughly placed on the record the history of the Plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery. The court then proceeded to adjudicate custody, parenting time, alimony, and child support. The court did not address equitable distribution, determining that any proceeds from the sale of assets shall be held in escrow. A Final Divorce Judgment was issued on June 13, 2013. The Plaintiff filed a pro se brief with the Appellate Court which did not comply with the Rules of the Court. N.J. Court Rule 2:5-4; N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 278, 914 A.2d 1265 (2007). Further, the contents of the Plaintiff's brief did not comply with N.J. Court Rule 2:6-2. In essence, the Plaintiff asked the Appellate Court to review the entire divorce proceedings in totem. According to the Appellate Division, the Defendant's request mischaracterizes its role in the proceedings, as it is to give considerable discretionary decision to the Family Court. Donnelly v. Donnelly, 405 N.J. Super. 117, 127, 963 A.2d 855 (App. Div. 2009). When a Family Part judge has made findings of fact after considering the testimony and documents the parties have presented during a non-jury trial, the judge's findings are generally "binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12, 713 A.2d 390 (1998). Further, "parties are required to make adequate legal argument." 700 Highway 33 LLC v. Pollio, 421N.J. Super. 231, 238, 23 A3d 446 (App. Div. 2011). Conclusory assertions that a judge committed error, devoid of reference to the judge's decision or the trial record, and further devoid of any attempt to apply the applicable precedent of the factual underpinnings of such conclusory assertions, do not satisfy the requirement. Therefore, the decision of the Family Court was affirmed. If you are considering and appeal of your final divorce judgment or you would like more information regarding divorce it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about divorce, uncontested divorce, equitable distribution, child support, alimony 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.

Equitable Distribution Award Survives Challenge

In DeLong v. DeLong, the Plaintiff appealed from a final divorce judgment entered in 2014 awarding alimony, equitable distribution, and counsel fees. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. The parties in this case were married for thirty-three (33) years. They owned a home together. In 1996, they sold the home when the Plaintiff's mother conveyed her house to them for one (1) dollar, making them joint tenants with a right of survivorship. The Plaintiff's mother received $500 per month which was characterized by the Plaintiff as rent. In 2008, the parties separated and the Plaintiff conveyed the house back to his mother for one (1) dollar. In 2009, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint for divorce which was voluntarily dismissed when the parties attempted to reconcile. In 2013, the Plaintiff once again filed for divorce and the Defendant filed an Answer and a Counterclaim for alimony and equitable distribution. In 2014, the court conducted a trial and heard testimony from the Plaintiff and Defendant about their marital history, work history, and assets acquired during their marriage. The judge decided that the Defendant was entitled to permanent alimony in the amount of $275 a week, $17,688 in equitable distribution representing the return of proceeds from the sale of their home in 1996, 50% of the marital portion of the Plaintiff's retirement funds, and ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's counsel fees. The Plaintiff appealed challenging the court's award of permanent alimony, equitable distribution, and attorney's fees. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court for all the reasons contained in the Family Court's judgment, but added commentary regarding the Plaintiff's challenge to the equitable distribution award. According to the Appellate Division, property subject to equitable distribution includes property that was obtained during the marriage due to efforts by either spouse. Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 609, 660 A.2d 485 (1995). "Although the trial court is permitted to recognize that the acquisition of certain property may be traced more directly to one partner than the other, the court is not compelled to distribute property to accommodate that origin." Id. at 638. The Appellate Court noted that in this case, the Family Court judge appropriately weighed the financial contributions of both parties as well as the benefits received by each, including improvements to the martial home. If you believe that a post-judgment modification to the equitable distribution of your property 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, alimony, divorce 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

Child Support Modification Denied

In Markey v. Melazzo, the Defendant appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order that denied his Motion to terminate his child support obligation and force a recalculation of his arrearage. The Appellate Division affirmed the ruling of the Family Court. In 1995, the Plaintiff and Defendant had a son together but never married. In 2005, a Court Order directed the Defendant to pay $129 a week in child support. In 2012, the Defendant was injured at work and has since claimed that he is unable to work because he is disabled. Later that year, a hearing officer denied the Defendant's Motion for modification of support, without prejudice, because the Defendant failed to provide proof of his income or the validity of his disability. In 2013, the Defendant filed the application which was the subject of this appeal, wherein he sought the termination of his child support and the elimination of his arrears. The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff has not permitted him to visit with the child and has changed the child's last name without his consent. In 2013, the Family Court denied the Defendant's Motion because the Defendant failed to provide a valid basis for relief. The Defendant appealed. According to the Appellate Division, child support is necessary to ensure that parents provide for the basic needs of their children. Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 590, 660 A.2d 485 (1995). A party who seeks modification of his or her child support obligation has the burden of demonstrating a change in circumstances warranting such an adjustment. Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157, 416 A.2d 45 (1980). The decision must be made in accordance with the N.J. Child Support Guidelines when applicable. Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250, 266, 864 A.2d 1108 (2005); Terry v. Terry, 270 N.J. Super. 105, 121, 636 A.2d 579 (App. Div. 1994). In this case, the Defendant sought the termination of his child support obligation and the elimination of his arrears dating back to 2002 when the child's name was changed, arguing that the name change was a de facto termination of his parental rights, yet the Defendant cites no authority of his position. According to the Appellate Court, the Family Court correctly determined that the Defendant's parental rights were never terminated and thus found no basis for vacating the Defendant's arrears. With respect to the Defendant's claim of disability, he did not submit any medical information. Therefore, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. If you anticipate that it may be beneficial to you to seek a post-judgment modification of a Court Order regarding a 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, 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.

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.