Header graphic for print

NJ Family Legal Blog

Pertinent Information As It Relates To New Jersey Family Laws


Posted in Divorce, Modification, Other

In my opinion, most people (typically women) decide whether or not to change their name to a maiden name at the actual time of the divorce proceeding, if not sooner.  The decision is a largely personal one and in my years of practice I’ve heard the gamut of reasons why to or not to change from the married name.  N.J.S.A. 2A:34-21 is the statute that governs legal name changes in our state.

Rarely do we see the courts chime in on this issue, because generally its quite mundane.  However, a recent published trial court opinion stemming out of Passaic county gives guidance on when is the appropriate time to make a request for a name change and how timing may be everything when it comes to this issue.

In the matter of Leggio v. Leggio, Mrs. Leggio filed an application with the family court seeking to change her name.  She provided the court with a copy of her dual judgment of divorce from bed and board entered in 2004.  Ten years later, she sought to change her name.

A critical point in this matter that cannot be overlooked is the distinction between a divorce from bed and board and a divorce.  New Jersey does not recognize legal separation for married people.  However, a divorce from bed and board has been considered by many to be the closest available option to a legal separation.  However, those who enter into a divorce from bed and board are not legally divorced and their marital bond is not dissolved. As an example, they can still remain on their spouse’s health and/or car insurance.  In order to become ‘divorced’, in the true sense of the word, from a divorce from bed and board, one party must file an application with the court seeking to convert their judgment into a final judgment of divorce.

The Leggio’s never did that.  So, when Mrs. Leggio came to the court seeking to change her name, the court looked to the statute which explicitly states, “The court, upon or after granting a divorce from the bonds of matrimony to either spouse…may allow either spouse…to resume any name used by the spouse…before the marriage…,or to assume any surname.”  This very language gives our courts authority to grant a name change incident to or after a “divorce from the bonds of matrimony”.  Because a divorce from bed and board does not dissolve the bonds of matrimony, the court held that a name change could not be granted unless and until a final judgment of divorce is entered.  The mere passage of time is insufficient.


Sandra C. FavaSandra C. Fava is a partner in the firm’s Family Law Practice, resident in the Morristown and Roseland, NJ offices. You can reach Sandra at 973.994.7564 or sfava@foxrothschild.com.

Connect with Sandra: Twitter_64 Linkedin


Posted in Practice Issues

We have been writing the New Jersey Family Legal Blog since 2008.  The writing has been a labor of love for us and has been very well received.  Aside from the satisfaction of seeing that thousands of people read the blog each month, we have heard from judicial law clerks and other lawyers about how much they enjoy the blog and use it as a resource – sometimes their first resource when doing reseach.  Sometimes we even see our posts used against us by adversaries.

Each year, the ABA Journal publishes the ABA Blawg 100, recognizing the 100 best legal blogs.  We would ask that you please consider nominating the New Jersey Family Legal Blog for inclusion this years.  We would really appreciate and really appreciate your interest in our blog.  You can submit your nominations here.


Eric SolotoffEric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric is resident in Fox Rothschild’s Roseland and Morristown, New Jersey offices though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

Connect with Eric: Twitter_64 Linkedin


Posted in Custody, Visitation/Parenting Time

I experienced a bittersweet moment this weekend.  My family was away for the holiday weekend (the weekend before my daughter’s 11th birthday), and she had a friend with her.  All of a sudden, gone was “daddy” only to be replaced by the much more mature sounding “dad” when she spoke to me.  I was not angry.  In fact, words cannot express the love and pride I have for both of my children.  That said, it was a stark reminder about how fast children grow up.  In a instant, she graduated from that sweet little girl to a mature (most of the time) pre-teen.  It is not that I did not see this coming, mind you, just that when it got here, it was jarring.

Father Holding Child Hand Stock Photo

So why, do you ask, is this family anecdote on a Family Law Blog?  In fact, I am happily married.  However, this reminded me that in one particular case, where there is particularly egregious parental alienation going on, we started using the term “childhood is fleeting”, to urge the court to act swiftly (it didn’t and that is another story – perhaps for a future post on this blog).   Put more simply, while there will always be a parent-child relationship, at least in name or by biology, childhood is finite.  It ends at 18 – if not sooner.  And once it is gone, it is gone.

When a parent interferes with the other parent’s relationship with the child(ren), special occasions interfered with or worse yet, the other parent is precluded from attending, disparaging the other parent to the child, buying a child’s affections, making a child take sides, the harm done is untold.  So too, when a parent voluntarily absents her/himself from a child’s life, think of all that child and that parent loses?  While sometimes there can be make up parenting time, often the parent can never be made whole.  If proms, graduations, religious events, birthdays, fathers or mothers days are missed – you can’t get those days back.

Courts often don’t do enough to stop parental interference (putting aside for the moment that it can take months to actually get before a judge), which only serves to encourage the violator to continue their abhorrent conduct.  Often, they are steeled by the fact that they got away with it, or worse yet, the threats of sanctions are empty threats, empowering the misconduct to get worse.

As I have just seen for myself, childhood goes by in a blink of an eye. Because you can never get the time back, court’s must be more dilligent in ensuring that parenting interference is swiftly remedied.  After all, isn’t this in the best interests of the child?


Eric SolotoffEric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric is resident in Fox Rothschild’s Roseland and Morristown, New Jersey offices though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

Connect with Eric: Twitter_64 Linkedin


Posted in Alimony, Modification

After almost three years of legislative discussions, negotiations, arguments, and the like, alimony reform is coming to New Jersey in what is turning out to be light speed.  Late last week, the New Jersey State Assembly unanimously passed a compromised form of long-debated legislation that would represent what many consider to be a substantial overhaul of New Jersey alimony law as we know it.  Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill, after which it was granted ”emergency” status, and followed by a full Senate vote.  The bill now rests on Governor Christie’s desk for his review.  There are many changes in the present form of the bill from that earlier debated in the legislature, by the State Bar, various family law committees, and the like, as this issue has quickly come to a head.  I provide below the major highlights of the law in its present form.


Regarding alimony awards, the law would only apply to awards involved in divorces that are in process, but not yet finalized, and future divorces that have yet to commence.  While some alimony reformists were seeking a retroactive application of the law to provide alimony relief to those payor spouses whose divorces were already finalized (other than through circumstances such as retirement, cohabitation and involuntary job loss/income decline-type modification), the legal and practical implications of such a provision would have raised major questions that are beyond the content of this blog entry.  For practitioners, this law will not only provide future guidance, but, critically, will provide for great use in ongoing divorce matters, especially where a question exists regarding whether alimony should be “permanent”, or what should happen to alimony once the payor reaches the age of retirement.

To that end,  the alimony reform movement seemed to gain momentum following last year’s Appellate Division decision in Gnall v. Gnall, 432 N.J. Super. 129 (App. Div. 2013), which is now pending before the Supreme Court of New Jersey.  One of the major issues in that case was the Appellate Court’s apparent holding that a 15-year marriage is one of long-term duration meriting a permanent alimony award.  Under the new legislation, however, that would not be the case.  As discussed below, the word “permanent,” in reference to alimony, will be removed from the statute, and a marriage of 15 years would no longer merit a “permanent” award.

Now for the highlights, some of which already exist as previously decided New Jersey case law, but of which are now being statutorily codified:

1. Standard of living – Neither party would have a greater entitlement to the standard of living (or a reasonably comparable standard of living) established during the marriage.

2.  Pendente Lite support payments - The nature, amount and length of pendente lite support, if any, paid during a divorce proceeding is now a statutory factor to consider when rendering an alimony award.  This bolsters the argument for those payors who pay interim support during a proceeding for months, if not years during a divorce proceeding.

3.  Weight of alimony factors – In analyzing the alimony factors, the court is required to “consider and assess evidence with respect to all relevant” factors and specify, with written findings of fact and conclusions of law, if it determined that certain factors are more or less relevant than others.  No factor shall carry more weight than any other factor unless the court finds otherwise.

4.  Duration of alimony - For any marriage of less than 20 years in duration, the total duration of alimony shall not, “except in exceptional circumstances,” exceed the length of the marriage.  The length and amount of alimony shall be determined pursuant to the statutory factors, as well as “the practical impact of the parties’ need for separate residences and the attendant increase in living expenses on the ability of both parties to maintain a standard of living reasonably comparable to the standard of living established in the marriage . . .”  A non-inclusive list of ”exceptional circumstances” are set forth in the proposed law.

6.  Reimbursement alimony - May not be modified for any reason.

7.  Permanent alimony - The word “permanent” is changed to “open durational” alimony.

8.  Retirement - The proposed law provides extensive language addressing a retirement scenario and, as a threshold matter, alimony may be modified or terminated upon the prospective or actual retirement of the obligor.  While another post will merit a more in-depth discussion on this topic, the major changes include:

  • “Full retirement age” is defined as the age at “which a person is eligible to receive full retirement benefits under the Social Security Act” – presently 67 years of age.
  • There will be a rebuttable presumption that alimony terminates once the obligor spouse reaches full retirement age (which can be set to a different date based on a showing of “good cause”).  The law then provides several factors for a court to consider in determining whether the rebuttable presumption can be overcome.
  • If the rebuttable presumption is overcome based on the enunciated factors, the court is required to apply the standard alimony factors to determine whether a modification or termination of alimony is appropriate.  Critically, “if the obligor intends to retire but has not yet retired, the court shall establish the conditions under which the modification or termination of alimony will be effective.”
  • If the obligor seeks to retire before full retirement age, the obligor must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the prospective or actual retirement is reasonable and made in good faith.  A series of factors are then set forth to determine what constitutes “reasonable and made in good faith.”
  • When a retirement application is filed in cases where there is an existing final alimony order or enforceable written agreement established prior to the effective date of the new law, the obligor’s reaching of full retirement age shall be deemed a good faith retirement.

9.  Modification of alimony – The law separates self-employed obligors from non-self-employed obligors.

  • As for non-self-employed obligors: a) a variety of factors are enunciated for a court’s consideration, most of which are already considered as part of the process when an application to modify alimony is made pursuant to Lepis v. Lepis, 81 N.J. 281 (1980); and b) importantly, the law provides that no application shall be filed until a party has been unemployed (involuntarily), or has not been able to return to or attain employment at prior income levels – or both – for a period of 90 days.

10.  Cohabitation – Alimony may be suspended or terminated.  The term is defined as involving a “mutually supportive, intimate personal relationship in which a couple has undertaken duties and privileges that are commonly associated with marriage or civil union but does not necessarily maintain a single common household.”  A variety of factors are enunciated, similar to those detailed in existing case law.  There cannot be an absence of cohabitation “solely on the grounds that the couple does not live together on a full-time basis.”

These are mainly the highlights of the pending law, and much discussion will follow once the law is enacted, interpreted, relied upon, and utilized in negotiations, arguments and the like.  The changes to alimony duration, retirement and modification are undeniably significant to family law practice.  Stay tuned to this blog for more updates and analysis on the new law as they unfold.


Robert A. EpsteinRobert Epstein is a partner in Fox Rothschild LLP’s Family Law Practice Group. Robert practices in the firm’s Roseland, New Jersey office and can be reached at (973) 994-7526, or repstein@foxrothschild.com.

Connect with Robert: Twitter_64 Linkedin



Posted in Equitable Distribution, Practice Issues

Inevitably, when there is a business to value as part of a divorce, the valuation experts will ask for buy/sell and/or shareholders agreements.  I often wonder why because quite often, you really don’t see much discussion about these agreements in the valuation reports.  Moroever, since Brown v. Brown changed the landscape, did away with discounts and essentially ushered in more of a value to the holder construct, it seems like consideration of an agreement was dead.  Rather, a myopic view of methodologies focused on income seemed to be the norm – disregarding all else.

In fact, I had a case not long after Brown where my client was a second year partner at on of the highest paying law firms in the world.  He had no clients, but was very smart, worked very hard and made a lot of money.  My adversary and I agreed that we would use a joint expert to give us a number of what my client would get under his shareholder agreement if he left (because that really was all that he would get if he left and any calculation based upon cashflow would really be a pure fiction in that case).  That said, when we got the report, we got two calculations.  One dealt with the agreement and the other was a capitalization of earnings. The reason for the second calculation – the expert believed, wrongly in my opinion and thankfully our mediator’s opinion, was that Brown required it.

Buy And Sell Switch Stock Photo Photo courtesy of freedigitalphotos.net

That said, there is New Jersey Supreme Court case law  (Stern v. Stern and Bowen v. Bowen to be precise) that suggests the use of a “trustworthy” buy-sell agreement to establish value, noting that in some instances it may appropriately establish a presumptive value of a party’s interest.  Often the issue is what is a  a “trustworthy” buy-sell agreement?  What makes an agreement trustworthy?  It is updated frequently and routinely used when people enter and exit a business.

That issue was the subject of a recent unreported (non-precedential) decision by the Appellate Division in a case called Levitt v. Jakobs. In that case, the Appellate Division affirmed a trial judge that valued plaintiff’s two percent interest in his group medical practice at $446,000, consisting of the value of his stock, his retirement compensation and his longevity bonus, and awarded defendant twenty-eight percent of that sum. The Plaintiff contended that the trial judge erred in using the stockholder and employment agreements to value his interest in the practice instead of using the discounted cash flow approach employed by his expert.

The Appellate Division disagreed and held:

We find no error in the judge’s considered decision that the practice’s regularly updated corporate agreements were a better measure of value than plaintiff’s expert’s projection of cash flows through 2020, discounted by a rate chosen on the basis of U.S. Treasury bonds, augmented by selected risk premiums and reduced by an assumed long-term growth rate.

The Court further held:

Here, the judge found that the practice’s governing agreements “set forth a clear basis to determine the value of plaintiff’s . . . interest” in the practice, noting that there had been thirty-two purchases or sales of stock under the formula in the stockholder’s agreement in the prior ten years.

Here, rather that looking at a calculation that was theoretical in basis, the court looked at what actually happened in 32 prior transactions within the same business.  Put another way, for better or for worse, the plaintiff was not likely going to get more or less than what he was entitled to in the formula used on the last 32 occasions.  Seems to be a fair result.

Interestingly, it is usually the business owner who urges the use of the agreement which often will provide a lower value than some type of income approach to valuation.  Here, the business owner was arguing for the opposite result which suggests that the income approach used by his expert suggested a lower value.

The take away from this case is that the shareholder/buy-sell agreements should not be ignored.  Find out how often they have been updated and whether they have been used if it is appropriate in the case.  Then determine whether it is appropriate to argue in your case.  If you do so, remind the court that Stern is still good law.


Eric SolotoffEric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric is resident in Fox Rothschild’s Roseland and Morristown, New Jersey offices though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

Connect with Eric: Twitter_64 Linkedin


Posted in Child Support, College

It all started with the 1982 Supreme Court case of Newburgh v. Arrigo.

That is the case that lawmakers, judges and attorneys alike point to when they are asked the age-old questions “why do divorced parents have an obligation to contribute to college, but intact parents do not?”  Eric Solotoff blogged about this conundrum on March 13, 2014 when Rachel Canning’s story hit the news (remember – that teen who sought and failed to compel her married parents to contribute to her college education?).

In addition to the factors it sets forth that a court must consider in allocating college contribution, a main takeaway from Newburgh is as follows:

In general, financially capable parents should contribute to the higher education of children who are qualified students. In appropriate circumstances, parental responsibility includes the duty to assure children of a college and even of a postgraduate education such as law school.

The thoughts conveyed by Newburgh – that college is a necessity – have been echoed throughout the nation.  In a 2013 HuffPost/YouGov poll, 53 percent of respondents agreed that a college education was necessary in order to get ahead in life, compared to just 28 percent who said it was not.


Since Newburgh, it has become axiomatic in New Jersey that parents must split in some fashion – i.e. not always 50/50, but full contribution allocated between the parents – their children’s college education upon divorce.  It became obligatory, the right of the child, just like child support for each child whose parents separated.

Newburgh became even more oppressive for some when in 2000, Finger v. Zenn overturned the so-called “Rutgers Rule” set forth in 1968 in Nebel v. Nebel, which limited a parent’s mandatory contribution to the amount which would have been required to send the student to a state university such as Rutgers.  Suddenly, parents were faced with astronomical college tuition obligations to costly private or ivy league universities.  These stresses were only heightened as college tuition continued to rise through the early 2000s.

But in recent years, particularly during the recession, and with the skyrocketing costs of private universities, this rule of financial contribution has become a rule of potential financial ruin.  I have heard and observed clients in distress at the prospect of paying for college.  When there is not enough money to go around for even daily expenses, how could a court mandate that college takes priority?

Well, a new superior court case, published on June 13, 2014 – Black v. Black – tackles these very interesting and real issues head on.  The case presented three legal issues regarding a divorced parent’s obligation to contribute to the cost of a child’s college education, when he has previously agreed to do so in a marital settlement agreement:

1.         What happens when there is a damaged relationship between a college-age student and a parent?  Should the parent still be obligated to provide ongoing financial assistance?

2.         Whether a parent should be obligated to pay for the cost of an expensive private college over a more modestly priced state school; and

3.         Whether the court can consider a student’s younger siblings of relatively close age who are likely to attend college in the near future as part of the college contribution analysis.

In this blog, I am only touching upon the last two inquiries.  The first one – the relationship between the contributing parent and the college student – will be a topic for a later blog.

One of the financial hurdles immediately recognized by the court head on in this case was that there was not a whole lot of money to go around.  The custodial mother was imputed an annual income of $20,000 while the non-custodial father was imputed an annual income of $60,000.  The father agreed to pay the mother $300 per week in alimony, along with child support under the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines for three children, who at the time of the divorce were 16, 13 and 10.  Additionally, the parties jointly stipulated that they would share in the cost of their children’s future college costs.

In the years that followed, there was a breakdown in the relationship between the oldest child and the father, however, the relationship with the two younger children remained intact.

In 2012, the oldest child graduated from high school and was accepted into Rutgers University at an annual cost of $12,000, most of which would be covered by grants, scholarships and loans.  The parties disagreed as to the amount of contribution from each parent, with the mother apparently requesting that the father contribute the vast majority of the uncovered costs.  It appeared that the father’s main objection centered around the child’s unwillingness to repair their relationship.

As a result of the disagreement, the father refused to contribute, leaving the mother to raise $4,000 for the child to attend his freshman year.

The child exceled during his first year of study.  At the conclusion of his freshman year, the child set forth his desire to transfer to the University of Miami – an out of state, private institution – so that he could pursue a major in Marine Biology.  The price tag for this transfer: $55,000 per year, less $33,000 in estimated financial aid, leaving an uncovered balance of $22,000 per year.

In assessing the father’s college contribution, the court very closely considered “the availability of colleges and universities which are significantly less expensive, and thus more reasonably affordable for some parents, than a student’s school of ‘top choice.’”

In examining the issue, the court specifically stated that “[t]he case of Finger v. Zenn…does not hold to the contrary.”

The court said that Finger only stands for the proposition that the family court is not prohibited from ordering a non-custodial parent to financially contribute to a child’s college costs in an amount exceeding the cost of attendance at a state college.  It specifically rejected the interpretation some courts have espoused that when a student seeks to attend a private university, the comparative cost of tuition at Rutgers or another less expensive state college is, as a matter of law, immaterial to the analysis.

Poignantly, the court recognized:

In intact families, where mothers and fathers address such issues outside of divorce court, the comparative expenses and affordability of tuition at different colleges is usually a significant factor for consideration by financially responsible parents and students alike. The issue of cost is no less important in families of divorce, particularly in cases where neither parent can afford a blank checkbook approach to education.

Recognizing the above, the Court came to the conclusion that regardless of what school a student personally wishes to attend, no parent should be expected to contribute more than he or she can reasonably afford.

The Court then went on to examine another financial reality posed by the parties’ situation: when there are other, younger children in the family, who are good students and who are relatively close in age to an older, college-age sibling, this can be a relevant factor in determining how much money the parents should apply towards the oldest child’s college education?

There are real economic implications to a parent’s decision to help fund a first child’s education, especially when there is no money specifically set aside for the expenditure.  The parents may potentially be sacrificing the educational opportunities of the younger children in favor of the older child.

As a result, the Court ultimately found that the parties have a reasonable ability to contribute $7,500 per year – $3,375 from the mother and $4,125 from the father (45%/55% split) – which was to be allocated between three college savings plans to be established and earmarked for all three children’s potential college costs.  This would result in a total contribution of $60,000 ($7,500 * 8 years), or $20,000 per child for his or her college education.

This opinion is novel for parents and the legal community alike.  Oftentimes, judges may be quick to strictly adhere perceived interpretations of case law based upon the prevailing legal practice, all the while ignoring the harsh economic realities posed by their decision.

Recall the Rutgers professor who agreed to contribute to the cost of graduate school and then got saddled with a $120,000 for his daughter to attend Cornell Law School?

The judge in this case, however, was not afraid to go out on a limb and deviate from awarding an amount that would have been financially devastating for both parents, and potentially for their younger children.

This case is especially instructive in drafting divorce agreements, so that litigants and their children can avoid long, protracted battles that ultimately do nothing more than deplete funds that would otherwise be contributed toward college. For example specifying the following in your divorce agreement could cut off much potential conflict at the pass:

1.         Percentages of Contribution.  Especially if your child is close to college-age, specify what percent each parent will contribute.  This will avoid the nickel and diming in the future.

2.         Expenses Covered.  Will the parents be responsible for room and board?  What about books? SAT and college preparatory classes?  Years abroad?  Set forth in your agreement exactly which expenses will be covered.

3.         Type of School.  Should the cost of tuition be capped at a state university or would you like to see your child go on to a prestigious, yet pricey, private school?  Reasonably decide what you can afford and cap the contribution if you believe paying for private college will impose financial stress.  Again, this does not mean that your child cannot attend the private school; he or she may just have to bear some of the cost.

4.         Establish 529 Accounts Early On.  If you have more than one child, a 529 account may be most appropriate if limited funds need to be allocated equally.  You may even want to stipulate to a joint 529 account in your divorce agreement, with an agreement by each party to contribute a certain amount each year. Remember, money placed in a 529 grows tax free and you can take it out if your client receives a scholarship, penalty free.  It is a win-win all around.


Baer, Eliana T.Eliana T. Baer is a frequent contributor to the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and a member of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Eliana practices in Fox Rothschild’s Princeton, New Jersey office and focuses her state-wide practice on representing clients on issues relating to divorce, equitable distribution, support, custody, adoption, domestic violence, premarital agreements and Appellate Practice. You can reach Eliana at (609) 895-3344, or etbaer@foxrothschild.com.


Posted in Custody, Practice Issues, Visitation/Parenting Time

“Physical violence can be testified to by outside evidence: eyewitnesses, police and medical reports.  With emotional abuse, there is no proof.  It’s clean violence.  Nobody sees anything.”

–Marie-France Hirigoyen, Stalking the Soul; Emotional Abuse and the Erosion of Identity.


Several months ago, after I published Seven Deadly Sins Of Divorce: Pride; The Narcissistic Divorce, I received a telephone call from my dear friend and client.  She was relieved.  She said that she had read my article, and it described her very experience; it was the reason she was on edge all the time, not knowing how, when and why her spouse would strike next.  It was the reason she lay awake at night worrying what will become of her children – will they be harmed emotionally?  How could she protect them from the wolf in sheep’s clothing that was her husband?

In the weeks and months that followed, the calls, emails and comments poured in.  There were so many similar stories of abuse at the hand of a narcissist.  Over and over, I heard the same fact pattern of abuse and control.  In light of the overwhelming prevalence of the issue, over the coming weeks, I intend to develop concerns and solutions in dealing with the abusive narcissist

Today, I will explore how the narcissist communicates, as described by Hirigoyen in her narrative, and the potential problems that may arise in co-parenting as a result:

  • Refusal of Direct CommunicationThe abusive narcissist refuses to have direct communication about the child – there is never direct communication because he/she just simply doesn’t discuss things.  Abusive individuals evade direct questions when asked.


  • Distortion of Language. The abusive narcissist uses innuendo, unexpressed reproach or veiled threats to communicate.  The tone is oftentimes flat and cold.  Child victims can often describe the change in tone before the aggression strikes, describing it as “white.”


  • Lies. Hirigoyen states that “[r]ather than using a direct lie, the abuser initially employs a mix of innuendo and unspoken hints to create a misunderstanding, which he will subsequently exploit to his advantage.” Lying is pervasive among abusive narcissists.


  • Use of Sarcasm, Ridicule, Contempt.  The abusive narcissist uses ridicule to create a position of knowing.  Embarrassing his or her spouse can become the sole goal and objective.


  • Use of Paradox. Often, an abusive narcissist will say something verbally and express the opposite non-verbally.  One way to do that is to cast doubt into innocuous elements of daily life.  For example: “I am so concerned about our child having the flu.  I wish you would dress him for the weather and feed him healthy foods.  Maybe then he wouldn’t be so sick all the time.” These feigned expressions of concern, without escalating tone of voice, can lead to doubt among even the most secure.


  • Divide and Conquer.  The abusive narcissist is adept at pitting people against each other by either insinuating doubt, revealing what one person said about the other, or by lying to incite people to become adversarial.  This can result in parental alienation (a subject of a future blog) between parent and child or conflict between the children themselves.


  • The Imposition of Power.  The goal of the abusive narcissist is to dominate.  The domination is typically underhanded and denied, often masked behind gentleness and benevolence.

The abusive narcissist’s behavior wreaks havoc on the co-parenting and parent-child relationship.  This may pose significant issues in Court or otherwise:

  • When a parent sharing decision making power fails to receive a direct response from the abusive narcissist, he or she may take actions that he/she believes are in the best interests of the child.  This leaves them vulnerable in Court as he or she can be exposed to criticism by the judge for alleged unilateral actions.  It certainly leaves the non-abusive co-parent open to a barrage of criticism from the narcissist.


  • Often, the abusive narcissist will turn the situation around on the victim, labeling the victim the aggressor.  I have seen this in my practice.  Based on my conversations with forensic psychologist, this practice is known as mirroring, and is meant to deflect attention. Whether or not the mirroring can be identified will depend upon the severity of the mental illness.


  • I have often heard victims describe parenting with a narcissistic abuser to be “chaotic.”  The abusive narcissist refuses to commit to parenting time, or will do so at the last minute; all in a cat and mouse game of power and control.


  • When the victim ultimately lashes out at the narcissistic abuser, they will essentially throw up their hands in a “Who? Me?” moment.


  • Many emails will be paradoxical; nice in tone, but in practice, create conflict and strife. Sentences like “I am only trying to do what is best for the children”; or, “I don’t understand why you won’t speak to me respectfully” may pervade the exchanges.


  • Many times, a narcissistic abuser will speak poorly of his/her former spouse in public regarding their actions as to the children, or making unkind allusions with no explanation to cast doubt upon them.


  • Because the abusive narcissist speaks in innuendo, it leads to a lack of tangible evidence to present to the Court. One client told me in tears, worried that the judge would restore parenting time to her husband: “Physical abuse is easy to identify.  But who will believe me when I tell them the pattern of emotional abuse I have been experiencing all these years?”


  • The abusive narcissist loves conflict.  Many times, he or she will just fight for the sake of fighting.  Dominance, rather than a reasonable co-parenting solution, is always the goal.

Of course, the above is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what victims of an abusive narcissist experience each and every day.  In my next blog on this issue, I will address how co-parents and judges can manage the burden that abusive narcissists.


Baer, Eliana T.Eliana T. Baer is a frequent contributor to the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and a member of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Eliana practices in Fox Rothschild’s Princeton, New Jersey office and focuses her state-wide practice on representing clients on issues relating to divorce, equitable distribution, support, custody, adoption, domestic violence, premarital agreements and Appellate Practice. You can reach Eliana at (609) 895-3344, or etbaer@foxrothschild.com.


Posted in Alimony, Divorce

While there are few issues more controversial in New Jersey family law than that of permanent alimony, one circumstance in which courts have been relatively consistent in rendering such an award - where the circumstances may have, without such fact, merited a different result - is where the payee spouse suffers from some form of malady.  This was the situation in Waldorf v. Waldorf, a newly unpublished (not precedential) Appellate Division decision where the wife was diagnosed with lupus during the marriage and also suffered from two related autoimmune disorders that caused a deterioration of her physical condition.


Here are some of the more pertinent facts aside from her diagnosis/conditions upon which the trial court relied in awarding permanent alimony:

  • The parties were married in 1995 and had one child in 1996.  Wife filed a Complaint for Divorce in April, 2007 (less than 12 year marriage at such time).
  • Husband regularly earned a six-figure income.
  • Wife had a bachelor’s degree in history and psychology and a law degree, but never practiced law.
  • Due to her conditions, she began working part-time in 2001 and, in July 2003 stopped working altogether.
  • She applied for Social Security disability benefits (SSD) and, in 2003, the Social Security Administration deemed her totally disabled.
  • At the time of trial, Wife’s SSD payments totaled $2,044 per month, plus $1,100 per month in derivative benefits for the child.  She also received Medicare, which covered 80% of her medical costs (not including prescription drug costs).
  • In 2009, Husband was terminated from his position of employment due to a company reorganization.  He left the country in January, 2010 and went to live in Guatemala for a short time before returning to New Jersey.  He remained unemployed until mid-2010, at which point he began working for a consulting firm.
  • In March, 2011, Husband was furloughed, and he was scheduled to start a different job in the same company in July, 2011.
  • Husband was regularly behind in support payments (as Ordered by the Court) during the divorce proceeding, and was even incarcerated, as a result in November, 2010, and in early April, 2011 until the end of May, 2011.  He filed several applications to reduce his support obligation during the matter.
  • After a 15-day trial, the judge found Wife credible and Husband incredible to the point that he concluded that he was “out of touch with logic and reality,” and was “singularly motivated to hurt [Wife] both financially and non-financially.”  In its decision, the judge granted Wife sole legal and physical custody of the child and, among other forms of relief, $2,000 per week in permanent alimony through a wage garnishment.  A substantial cousnsel fee award was also rendered for the Wife, of approximately $100,000.

While the Appellate Division affirmed the award of permanent alimony, it remanded for a recalculation of the amount.  Notably, the Court quoted from Gnall v. Gnall, 432 N.J. Super. 129 (App. Div. 2013), a controversial decision on the issue of permanent alimony that is now before the Supreme Court of New Jersey, providing, “Although ‘[c]ourts must consider the duration of the marriage’ when fixing alimony, ‘the length of the marriage and the proper amount or duration of alimony do not correlate in any mathematical formula.’”

Pertinent to the Wife’s condition here, it also noted in quoting from other well known cases on the issue of alimony that a parties divergent circumstances “at the end of a relatively short marriage” may require the more fortunate spouse to “accept responsibility for the other’s misfortune – the fate of their shared enterprise.”  In affirming the permanent alimony award, the Appellate Division noted, “Although twelve years is not an exceptionally long marriage, plaintiff’s ailing health and inability to work created an actual economic dependency on defendant requiring him, as the more fortunate spouse, to accept responsibility for her misfortunes.”

Interestingly, the Court reversed and remanded on the quantum of alimony awarded, noting that “[Husband] was the architect of this flawed alimony award,” rather than the trial judge against whom Husband had accused of bias.  Since the trial judge had relied on one of Husband’s incomplete Case Information Statements – which lists out, among other things, a marital and individual monthly lifestyle – it did not account for taxes, medical insurance, life insurance, and the like, as well as, interestingly, the counsel fee award against him.

Since Husband represented himself during the proceeding, the Appellate Division concluded that the trial judge “should have fully questioned defendant about his expenses to reach a more realistic budget,” and that he did not find that the amount allowed Husband to reasonably maintain the marital standard of living (despite the Court affirming the trial court imputing to Husband a higher level of income than that earned at the time of trial, based on a review of his income history and conclusions of voluntary underemployment).  Ultimately, the Appellate Division concluded that the amount of the award – when compared to what it would leave Husband with each month – was inequitable.

While some readers of this post and the underlying opinion may question how a 12 year marriage can result in an award of permanent alimony, the Wife’s health condition here left her in a condition where she would never be able to support herself to any degree resembling the lifestyle lived during the marriage.  Under this fact-specific scenario, the alimony duration seems both appropriate and equitable for both parties.


Robert A. EpsteinRobert Epstein is a partner in Fox Rothschild LLP’s Family Law Practice Group. Robert practices in the firm’s Roseland, New Jersey office and can be reached at (973) 994-7526, or repstein@foxrothschild.com.

Connect with Robert: Twitter_64 Linkedin


Posted in Equitable Distribution, Practice Issues

You’re wealthy and entitled to a big settlement but does that mean that it will be easy to get your share of equitable distribution?  When all of the assets are valued, you are worth $2,000,000, $10,000,000, $25,000,000, $9 billion.  In many cases. the issue is less about the amount of the award of equitable distribution but how to pay it out.  That issue is in the spotlight today with the story reported in today’s New York Daily News that Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev allegedly reneged on a deal to settle his divorce case for a relatively modest $1 billion, and then was hit with a record $4.8 billion divorce judgment.  It is reported that despite a net worth approaching $9 billion, he claimed that he was unable to come up with the cash to satisfy the settlement (though both accuse the other of reneging).

Treasure Chest With Coins Stock Photo Photo courtesy of freedigitalphotos.net

In many cases, it matters less about how much you have, but how liquid your are or are able to become.  In the last few years, I had a case that settled reasonably quickly and easily because most of the nearly $60 million net worth was in liquid assets (cash and securities.)  In that case, it was easy to transfer some homes, cash and securities and call it a day.

Most high net worth cases are not that easy, especially where there are business interests and/or commercial real estate.  The business may be profitable and it may be worth a lot of money, but it is not likely to be sold any time soon.  Sometimes the business owns the real estate (in the marital pot and most often valued separately) where it is located making the claim for the share of the business and the property even harder to pay out without disrupting the business.

The business throws off an income stream, but the non-titled spouse is often seeking alimony from that income stream.  If the business or property has to be sold to satisfy the equitable distribution, is it still fair to award alimony.  Not to mention, this could have very real tax ramifications perhaps not contemplated which could make the deal unfair.  Borrowing to pay the settlement out up front is often easier said than done, and moreover, you don’t want the borrowing to impair the business’ ability to continue to operate.

For better or for worse, in these types of cases, the equitable distribution may have to be paid out over time.  What a reasonable amount of time is depends on the facts of the case.  The next fights are (1) should there be interests and if so, how much, and (2) how to provide security for the obligation.  This can get very complicated, often requiring consultation with corporate, tax, real estate and/or trust and estates counsel.

What happens when you can’t resolve it and try the case?  Hopefully the judge will consider all of these things.  That said, I can point to at least two cases that I handled some appellate work on where that was not the case.

In one case, after a more than 20 day trial, most of which was expert testimony, where the values were widely divergent, the trial judge held that it was too complicated to decide and ordered that everything should be sold.  However, given certain unique tax issues related to the assets, the result could have been catastrophic because assets valued between $20 and $40 million would have been rendered valueless or worse, when the tax bill came.  Neither party wanted that and the case was ultimately settled.

In another high profile case, with a valuable business, and valuable real estate used by the business for its operations, the trial judge issued an award of more than $30 million and simply reduced it to judgment.  The trial judge did not order or even suggest how it be paid, even though everyone seemed to want direction, and simply left the parties to their own devices.  That was untenable too and the case was ultimately settled.

The take away is that just because there is great wealth, and just because you agree how much the non-titled spouse is entitled to receive, the hard part may be figuring out how to make that happen.


Eric SolotoffEric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric is resident in Fox Rothschild’s Roseland and Morristown, New Jersey offices though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973)994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

Connect with Eric: Twitter_64 Linkedin


NJ Family Law Podcast Series Presents: Pride; the Narcissistic Divorce

Posted in Practice Issues

Divorcing a narcissist may be the most difficult thing you will ever have to do.

But it also may be the most rewarding for you and your family in the long term.

In this podcast, Robert A. Epstein and I highlight the special considerations that should be taken into account when divorcing someone who has a narcissistic personality.

Listen to the Podcast.


The above link will allow you to listen to the podcast, while the you can also  Download the Transcript here for your reading pleasure. Enjoy!



Robert Epstein and Eliana T. Baer are associates in Fox Rothschild LLP’s Family Law Practice Group. Robert practices in the firm’s Roseland, New Jersey office and can be reached at (973) 994-7526, or repstein@foxrothschild.com. Eliana practices in the firm’s Princeton, New Jersey office and can be reached at (609) 895-3344, or etbaer@foxrothschild.com.