NJ Family Legal Blog : New Jersey Divorce and Family Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Domestic Violence, Prenuptial Agreements, Child Custody

Many times I have been asked whether New Jersey has a form of legal separation.  The answer?  The closest form of legal separation is what is known by statute as divorce from "bed and board," also known as a "limited divorce."  In simple terms, it means that two spouses have obtained a divorce from a financial standpoint, but they are still actually, legally married.  Assets are distributed, support is determined.  Notably, both parties must agree and request to a divorce in this form pursuant to the divorce from bed and board statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-6. 

The statute even says that the grounds upon which the divorce is based are the same available in a standard divorce situation.  As the parties are still legally married, they can then later reconcile, apply for a revocation or suspension of the Judgment of Divorce or, should no reconciliation occur, either may apply to the court for a conversion of the divorce from bed and board to that of a standard divorce "from the bounds of matrimony."  The conversion application must be granted to the requesting party.   A divorce from bed and board allows each party to acquire property free of the rights that the other party would have if there were no divorce in place.  Similarly, such a divorce prevents a spouse from inheriting the other spouse's property at that spouse's death where there existed no Will.

This type of divorce was recently at issue in Pipitone v. Pipitone, an unreported (not precedential) decision from the Appellate Division holding that the bed and board statute does not mandate that an alimony award, entered into years after the bed and board divorce, must be deemed retroactive to the date of the bed and board divorce order.  Simply put, such an award is prospective only.  The Appellate Division reasoned that, in a situation where one spouse attempts to convert a bed and board divorce into an divorce from the bounds of matrimony or "absolute" divorce, there is an opportunity to revisit the support and distribution terms of the prior property settlement agreement.

While the property acquisition freedom associated with a bed and board divorce may be beneficial to some, many people avoid this antiquated concept and prefer to end the bonds of matrimony with an absolute divorce so that the legal attachment to the other that remains with a bed and board divorce no longer exists.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

So often we hear about how to prevent identity theft. Do not give out your social security number; do not give out bank account information, etc. But what do you do when you are going through a divorce, and the Court requires you to provide documents that contain your social security number and/or bank account information. The thought of one’s personal income tax returns and bank statements floating around the courthouse for all personnel to see can make anyone feel uncomfortable. 

The Supreme Court of New Jersey recognized this issue and adopted R. 1:38-7. Said Rule requires that any document or pleading submitted to the Court containing confidential personal identifiers must be redacted. A confidential personal identifier is defined as a Social Security number, driver’s license number, vehicle plate number, insurance policy number, active financial account number, or active credit card number. In addition, in the event one of your accounts, i.e. bank account, brokerage house account, etc. is the subject of the litigation, the Court Rules provide that only the last four (4) digits of the account be disclosed if the account cannot otherwise be identified.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Connecticut seems to be the hotbed of celebrity divorces these days. 

Yesterday's news reported that model Stephanie Seymour will have to make due on $270,000 per month in temporary support while her case is pending.  The news accounts report that her husband nets $1.5 million per month making this appear to be a veritable drop in the bucket.

Today's new reports that sportscaster Jim Nantz has to pay his wife $72,000 per month in permanent alimony plus $1,000 per week in child support.  This is a substantial amount if his income is $3.2 million as noted in one place but not so much if his income is $7 million as reported in other places. 

Aside from a look into the lives of the rich and famous, this shows another thing - that is, divorce can be a very public airing of very private matters.  While perhaps it may be more noteworthy for celebrities, even much of regular people's divorce can become part of the public record.  While it is not possible to completely avoid this, treating each other in a dignified and fair manner and settling issues is a way to help keep things out of the public record. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As is widely known, the filing date of the complaint for divorce which actually leads to a divorce is the “cutoff date” for equitable distribution, that is, assets acquired up to that date are generally subject to equitable distribution, and assets acquired after that date are generally not. This is a general rule and cannot be taken as a total brightline test since there are no notable exceptions. Among these are: (1) assets acquired by way of gift or inheritance or intestate succession (death without a will) not from a spouse; (2) assets acquired with other assets which were either from a third party as in the first example of acquired by one party prior to the marriage. An exception to the cutoff date would be an asset acquired by one party after the cutoff date but with assets which were subject to equitable distribution. Again, these are general rules and there are always exceptions or other fact situations which render a general rule inapplicable. Obviously, it is best to consult qualified counsel since each circumstance is fact-sensitive, and the result usually turns on very specific development of the facts.

One exception to the timing of “cutoff date” rule is advantageous to the parties. Say that (for one reason or another) the parties are cooperative and want to attempt to negotiate an agreement before filing for divorce. Their hope is that they can amicable provide the other, through counsel, with sufficient documentary information upon which to adequately understand their financial circumstances and based on that understanding, negotiate an agreement, in which case, they can then file for divorce and obtain an uncontested termination of their marriage within a few weeks. Using this methodology, they can avoid certain judicial systemic entanglements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There are numerous criminal acts addressed within the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, which,if proven,can form the basis for the entry of a domestic violence restraining order.The crime of harassment  is one.  It is defined by New Jersey law as being committed when a person, "with purpose to harass another," "[e]ngages in any other course of alarming conduct . . . with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person."  The person must have a "conscious objective" to harass the victim.

Actually proving a purpose to harass, however, can be harder than it seems.  For instance, I recently tried a Final Restraining Order hearing where the husband/alleged abuser admitted to calling his wife dozens of times after she had fled the home and he had obtained a bogus temporary restraining order against her.  His defense?  I was just trying to "get her back because I love her."  Despite the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act requiring a broad interpretation of its terms to protect victims, the trial court dissolved the wife's TRO against the husband, finding that the husband lacked a purpose to harass despite admitting to everything that she alleged.  This despite an also undisputed prior history of domestic violence.

It was this oftentimes difficult "purpose" requirement that was recently addressed by the Appellate Division in R.P. v. Somerset, where the Appellate Division reversed a trial court's implementation of a Final Restraining Order because of a misinterpretation of the law.  The trial court held that a specific intent to harass was not necessary in proving that harassment occurred.  The Appellate Division disagreed and reversed, finding that the "purpose" is an integral part of proving a harassment claim.  In its conclusion, it also found that there was no evidence of a purpose in the case at issue, especially in light of a lack of prior domestic violence by the alleged abuser.  This despite the fact that the primary incident involved the alleged abuser/ex-girlfriend showing up at the ex-boyfriend's home when he arrived with his new girlfriend, pulling the new girlfriend from the car and assaulting her. 

Purpose is critical.  So is filling out a domestic violence complaint with as much relevant detail as possible.  Any victim will surely be grilled on the contents of the complaint, especially if there is anything missing or contradictory from testimony given.  Including details as to current and past incidents is of great importance.  Also, considering how difficult it may be to prove harassment, it is also recommended to check off a claim for harassment on the complaint form, as well as any other claim that may be proven by your facts, such as stalking, assault, terroristic threats, etc. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The scene is not all that uncommon.  Two people marry and have a child.  The relationship ultimately breaks down and, for one reason or another, one parent leaves the home without the child and tries to establish a new place to live.  If a custody order is entered during that time period, will a court consider the living situation of the parent who left the home in rendering a custody determination?

First and foremost, public policy in New Jersey favors relationships with both parents after separation/divorce, and that both parents share in the responsibilities in raising the child.  In the eyes of the law, both parents are treated as equals.  One aspect of a given situation that the court is to consider is the "stability of the home environment offered."

In Betancourt v. Spratley, the child's mother left the primary home without the child, leaving him with the father.  The husband filed an application with the court for custody, which was granted because the mother testified that she was essentially homeless at the time.  The court told the mother, however, to file for a custody modification based on a "significant change in circumstances" when her living situation had stabilized.  She ultimately did so one month later, providing as evidence her lease and a description of her roommates, living space and neighborhood.  She also provided evidence that she had resumed employment and that her employer provided for child-care planning.  The court, however, denied her requested relief. 

On appeal, the Appellate Division concluded that the mother should not have had to prove a significant change in circumstances.  Rather, considering the tumultuous circumstances surrounding the first custody order and the close time within which the mother filed to modify the custody arrangement, the Appellate Division found that the first order was really rendered to maintain the status quo for the child.  As a result, the Court ultimately held that the the mother was entitled to a review of the custody situation under the factors listed in New Jersey's custody statute (N.J.S.A. 9:2-4), and did not have to prove changed circumstances.  Such a review was to include a look at how and when the mother could be in a position to demonstrate that she had achieved stability; she was to have the opportunity to mediate the situation and have her living arrangements investigated; and another proceeding was to be scheduled in the future to determine custody and parenting time issues.

The custody determination has at its heart the best interests of the child.  A consideration of where the child will live is logically an important part of any custody determination made pursuant to New Jersey's custody law.  It is therefore critical that the parent establish that the home is a safe and loving place for the child to live. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last Friday, I was sitting in a courtroom, early for my case, when the judge called the two attorneys on the case before mine into his chambers.   As the time passed, what interested me was the reaction of both of the clients that were left behind. Both clients were disturbed that they were left alone in the courtroom while their lawyers and the judge were “in the back.” Oftentimes, judges will ask the attorneys to come back to his or her chambers, or office, for a multitude of reasons.  And I realized, that in an already stressful situation, not knowing what was going on was just another worry for the litigants.  

On many occasions, the reason can be something as simple as the judge wanting to schedule something in the case and needs to look at the court calendar. For that matter, most attorneys will have more than one case in front of the same judge and they may wind up speaking about another case entirely for a brief period ( for example, “ by the way, have you been able to settle the Doe v. Doe case you were here on last week?” “ Not yet, judge, but I think we are close to a resolution.”).  I was in a judge’s chambers several weeks ago, and it was nothing more than a scheduling conference as my adversary and I were trying to schedule a next day of trial. Between the two lawyers, we had five cases in front of the judge.  It took quite a while to find a common day that both lawyers and the court was available!

The court may want to get a sense of what discovery it still outstanding and what a realistic time frame is for getting a case ready for trial.  Other times, the judge wants to speak about an aspect of the case and ask the lawyers for their position on a legal issue, and may explore whether the issues should be the topic of further research. Priority of issues in a case may be a topic of conversation as well. Which issues are ones which will take a longer time at trial and which are not. Are there any issues in a case which may reasonably settle prior to trial? And speaking of settlement, the court may want to know how far apart the parties are to a settlement.

Some judges will become more involved than others when settlement is being discussed.  Most issues have come in front of a judge before, and he or she knows that “range” a decision will be in. If one side is being completely unreasonable, the judge may be able to help the parties move towards a settlement. The judge may have some creative ideas for compromise that it wants to share with the attorneys.  The court may want to give the attorneys his or her initial reaction in order to focus an argument.

My point is, there are many reasons why the judge may call the lawyers to chambers. Whatever the reason, it is not unusual for the lawyers to get into chambers, and the court’s staff has a pressing matter to speak to the court about, and the attorneys have to wait.  In any event, the lawyer, should, upon coming back to the client be forthright about the topic of conversation, however mundane it may have been.  It is just one of the ways an attorney should effectively communicate with the client.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Many couples in the midst of a divorce have very young children. As a result, the issue of funding their children’s college education is typically reserved until the child is of college age. Parties typically agree to include language in their Property Settlement Agreement wherein they will exchange income information and begin discussions regarding the child’s college expenses during the child’s junior year of high school. This makes sense because after all, no one can predict their financial future. Fast forward 15 years, the child is about to begin the process of applying to college. The parties have informal discussions, sans counsel, regarding their respective contributions. The custodial parent accepts the non-custodial parent’s contribution for a few years then decides it is just not enough. Can the custodial parent seek a retroactive contribution toward the child’s college expenses? 

The Appellate Division just answered this very question in the unpublished decision of Kmetz v. Fusaro, Decided October 9, 2009, Docket No. A-5870-07T3. In Kmetz v. Fusaro, the parties divorced when their daughter was 9. Their Property Settlement Agreement includes the following clause “The parties acknowledge their desire of the child to attend college or other post graduate professional schooling consistent with the child’s ability and the parent’s financial means. Each party agrees to assist the child in such endeavor and to contribute according to their then available means after all available financial aid, scholarships and part-time and summer earnings.”  

The parties’ daughter attended college immediately following high school graduation. The Father voluntarily paid $1,500 each year toward his daughter’s freshman and sophomore year college costs. In the summer between the daughter’s sophomore and junior year, the Mother asked Father to increase his contribution. Father increased said contribution to $2,000 that year. In the middle of the daughter’s junior year, Mother retained an attorney who contacted Father seeking an additional contribution toward the college expenses. Ultimately, Mother filed a motion with the trial court seeking contribution, in proportion to income, toward the daughter’s college costs for her freshman, sophomore, junior and senior years. The trial court granted Mother’s request and ordered Father to pay 68 percent of his daughter’s college costs for all four years.

The Appellate Division, relying upon Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535 (2006) and Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982), concluded that Father  should not have to contribute toward the college costs of his daughter’s freshman, sophomore and first semester junior year. Reason being, Mother accepted Father’s voluntary contributions for the aforementioned years.   Suffice it to say, if you are the custodial parent of a child on the heels of the college application process, it is essential that you discuss the funding of your child’s college education with your ex-spouse. If you are unable to reach a resolution, it is imperative that you seek the Court’s assistance prior to your child’s first day of college.

EDITOR'S NOTE:  To avoid the typical complaints about lack of consultation and lack of notice, the custodial parent should also involve the non-custodial parent in the process as early in college selection process, as possible, and put the communications in writing.  Perhaps the non-custodial parent should be invited to make college visits with the custodial parent and the child or otherwise, should be invited to take the child to other colleges for visits.  In fact, the other parent should be solicited for schools that he/she would suggest being considered.  The more that is done in this regard, the less the other side can object to and as such, the review becomes a financial one, as opposed to dealing with some of the other extraneous issues that often come up.  ERIC S. SOLOTOFF

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As a divorce lawyer, I follow with interest the high profile divorces when they are in the news.  There were actually three in yesterday and  today's papers, John & Kate, Christie Brinkley and Peter Cooke and Stephanie Seymour. 

If the news accounts of the allegations are correct, then the news of the last few days included one party wiping out a large bank account and leaving the other with little cash; the other party in the same case not allowing the spouse to share in the children's birthday party; failure to timely turn over a passport so that a child could attend a school trip being chaperoned by the other parent; and the destruction of art work in the family home.  A few weeks ago, one of the combatants was quoted about how he "despised" the other spouse.  Even if you think that, why do you say it, especially in the press, no less.

These kind of things happen every day in divorces that don't make the news.  That does not make it right. The process is difficult enough for the parties and their children without having to deal with aberrant, aggressive or hateful conduct.  When it clearly happens, the conduct usually blows up in the face of the perpetrator.

Having represented a few professional athletes and celebrities or their spouses in the past, it is fascinating how these things play out in the press. I wonder, with disbelief, especially now that the Internet provides a record of everything, why certain dirty laundry is aired in such a public way where the kids (or their friend, classmates, etc.) may be able to see it either now or in the future. Some of this may be unavoidable because most divorce filings are public records available for anyone to see. That said, one wonders if there is not a better way.  Is the prolonging of the 15 minutes of fame worth it?. 
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today I came across a blog entry by a divorce mediator which was nothing short of an attack on "best lawyers."  It appeared as though the ills of the divorce world were placed at the feet of the best divorce lawyers. Lawyers were castigated for such sins as discovery (obtaining financial documents) and seeking court assistance when you want temporary support or time with the children. He said that any lawyer can get the same result and that hiring a good lawyer sets the client up for a racket that is in the lawyer's best interests, but not the client's.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that I have seen attacks on lawyers from the mediation community.  There appears to be a turf war.  Either you are mediation friendly, or you are not.    Rather than recognizing that some cases are more amenable to mediation than others, the followers would rather attack the "non believers."  

While I agree that most cases will settle, many cases take a fair amount of discovery and litigation to get there. To believe otherwise is simply naive. 

Further, while mediation is not for everyone, it is a useful tool in many cases, Then again, just as not all attorneys are alike, neither are all mediators.  In fact, I suspect that the author of the blog that I read would agree that not every mediator can get the same result - though he says that any lawyer can. 

In a prior blog from May 2009, I wondered whether the mediator's goal was a fair settlement or just a settlement.  To see another blog post on mediation that I authored, click here.  Are parties, often the woman being protected from the imbalance of power that permeated the marriage?  Are people being told of their rights when they appear at mediation without lawyers?  What efforts are made to ensure full and accurate disclosure?  Are the appropriate appraisals being done at all, and when done, are they being challenged and scrutinized to make sure that they are fair and accurate? 

There is no doubt that mediation and other methods of alternate dispute resolution can be a good thing. That said, I have often seen mediations result in a "settlement", but one where the disadvantaged spouse got a "deal" that was neither fair nor reasonable, if not unconscionable. The problem in these cases is that often, once there is an "agreement", the person that got the great deal refuses to concede anything. Thus, a method meant to avoid litigation can often create litigation.  Many of these deals came from the "best mediators." 

That said, rather than attacking lawyers, mediators should recognize that there is a place for the best attorneys and the best mediators.  I posit that the best and most fair mediated settlements will result from the attorneys and mediators working together rather than attacking each other.  I am sure that we can all agree that a fully informed settlement, where both parties interests are fully protected, is optimum. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Driving around town this weekend, I saw many lawn signs, like those you would see for a political candidate, advertising a "Free Divorce Seminar." The old adage, "you get what you paid for" comes to mind. 

While I am aware of the phenomena of these "seminars" over the last several years, putting aside potential conflict of interest issues that could perhaps be created, is this the type of thing that one contemplating a divorce should be attending?  Or rather, should a person schedule an honest to goodness divorce consultation with an attorney to which they have been referred or otherwise have researched? 

There is no privacy or anonymity at the seminar - you may see neighbors, parents of your children's classmates, etc.  There is no confidentiality or privilege at a seminar.  You have these things at an initial consultation. 

You cannot ask confidential questions at a seminar; maybe you cannot ask questions at all (and the smart attorney probably would not take questions for risk of prematurely creating an attorney client relationship.)  You cannot show the attorney any pertinent document for the same reason.  And how can you develop a rapport with a speaker at a seminar?  The seminar can never be tailored to your special circumstances because one size never fits all. At a seminar, you cannot really probe the presenter's experience, depth of staff and other resources of the firm, ability to commit to your case, etc. 

At the end of the day, a one-on-one consultation, even if you have to pay for it, will be far more worthwhile to protect your dignity and get the attention and information you deserve.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We have blogged several times as to a former spouse's attempt to obtain an alimony or child support reduction based on the existence of substantial and continuing changed circumstances impacting the spouse's ability to pay, as set forth by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980).  One of the so-called recognized changed circumstances set forth in Lepis is "illness, disability or infirmity" arising after a support Order was first entered. 

An interesting question might arise as to whether a payor spouse claiming an illness or disability as the basis for changed circumstances is really trying to engage in a bad faith form of early, voluntary retirement in order to avoid paying support.  Generally, a retirement when the spouse hits age 65 may justify a support reduction so long as it was made in good faith.  Where the retirement occurs before age 65, however, a Court will look even more closely at the facts to see to what degree the retiring spouse benefits from his retirement compared to the disadvantage suffered by the dependent spouse.

Further, while a temporary change in circumstances, such as through the loss of employment, is generally not enough to obtain a support reduction, what about the reduction of support for a specific, limited period of time?  For instance, New Jersey courts have granted this type of reduction where the payor spouse has been imprisoned or cohabitated with another for a specific period of time. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Victims of domestic violence often believe that they will be able to obtain a Final Restraining Order against their abuser simply because they were able to obtain the initial Temporary Restraining Order.  Obtaining an FRO, however, can be more difficult than one might think in light of the necessary proofs that must be made in court.  A victim must essentially prove his or her allegations by a "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not).

While New Jersey's Rules of Evidence are supposed to strictly apply, the fact that these situations are oftentimes  "he said/she said" versions of events can necessitate some flexibility in order to get the full story on the record.  However, as the Appellate Division recently held in N.V. v. Hartman, there are limitations as to har far a Trial Court may go in relying upon certain forms of evidence. 

The case involved a same-sex domestic violence dispute where N.V. alleged that Hartman had harassed her within the terms of New Jersey's Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.  In implementing a FRO against Hartman, the Trial Court relied in large part upon phone calls that Hartman made to N.V., finding that parts of the calls were threatening to N.V.'s safety based on the tone and language of the calls themselves. 

In reversing the Trial Court, the Appellate Division found that certain calls upon which the Trial Court relied were not made part of the Court record because a transcript of the calls was not entered as evidence, a verbatim record was not made of the calls played in Court, and the tape containing the calls was not marked into evidence as a Court exhibit and retained by the Court.  The Appellate Division, as a result, could not determine what recordings were acctually relied upon or played for the trial judge.  A new trial was Ordered as a result.

Relying on experienced counsel can help a litigant navigate through rules of evidence that can be tricky and technical.  Otherwise, key pieces of evidence upon which you want to rely at a FRO hearing may be inadmissible or improperly used in making your case. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A common misconception in New Jersey is that both spouses can use the same attorney for their divorce.  My local paper recently had an article about divorces in the current economy.  One attorney was quoted as intimating that this was true; the attorney was speaking of uncontested divorces in which the parties agree on issues and the seek the dissolution of their marriage. While I am certain that the attorney’s comments were taken out of context, as one of the points in the article was a concern about legal fees, this is a question that comes to me often.  A client will ask me if I can represent both spouses, even if they have an agreement.  The answer is a resounding, no.

The ethics rules in our state are very clear that one attorney cannot represent both spouses in a divorce.   Simply, it is a conflict of interest.  The New Jersey Supreme Court has said on many occasions, that “one of the most basic responsibilities incumbent on a lawyer is the duty of loyalty to his or her clients. From that duty issues the prohibition against representing clients with conflicting interests."( In re Opinion No. 653 of the Advisory Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, 132 N.J. 124, 129 (1993)).  Our state has a very strong policy in which there should not be even an “appearance” of a possible conflict of interest.  This is to protect the clients.

Imagine a scenario in which one spouse has been home raising children, and the other has been working throughout a twenty year marriage.  This is a situation in which alimony will be an issue.  Certainly, the non working spouse and the working spouse may have differing positions about the amount and term of alimony. Most people agree that in these circumstances, the parties will want to have their own attorneys.  But what about the situations where both parties are working, and they have a house and a couple of retirement accounts.  Many people believe that in this situation, they do not need two attorneys and both use the same lawyer.  Well, they can’t. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

New Jersey's Equitable Distribution Statute guides courts to consider several factors in deciding how to distribute property upon the dissolution of a marriage.  For instance, courts consider, among other factors, the duration of the marriage; the income or property brought to the marriage by each party; the economic circumstances of each party at the time the property division becomes effective; and the contribution of each party to the acquisition/dissipation/preservation/depreciation or appreciation in the value of the marital property, as well as contributions of one party as a homemaker.  Many people believe that all assets are to be split "down the middle" or equally, when, in reality, the analysis is more complex and an unequal distribution may be permitted under a given set of facts and circumstances.

Pursuant to these factors and numerous New Jersey cases on equitable distribution, a variety of assets exist that are generally exempt from equitable distribution including, but not limited to, an inheritance or pre-marital assets. Generally speaking, however, separate assets can effectively transform into marital property subject to distribution when such property is commingled or mixed with marital assets.  For instance, if a spouse receives an inheritance and then deposits it into a joint bank account with marital monies, then the inheritance has arguably commingled with the other joint account monies and is now subject to distribution. That said, just because it is commingled does not automatically mean that it should be equally divided upon a divorce.

The Appellate Division's recent decision in Speck-Bartynski v. Bartynski touched upon this issue.  There, the Wife appealed from that portion of a Final Judgment of Divorce equitably distributing investment accounts containing $1.5 million in commingled funds obtained from the Husband's inheritance with 1/3 going to the Wife and 2/3 to the Husband.  The inheritance was $2.5 million and approximately $2.186 million was commingled with marital funds, including, but not limited to, investment accounts to which both parties had access. 

While most of the other assets involving the use and/or investment of the commingled funds were equally divided, the trial court implemented the disproportionate split as to the investment accounts because the Husband had attempted to limit the Wife's access to the accounts by requiring two signatures.  In affirming the trial court's decision, the Appellate Division noted that the trial court properly considered the equitable distribution statutory factors, especially as to the Husband's sole contribution - through the inheritance - to acquiring the investment accounts at issue; the Husband's desire to preserve the inheritance for his children and grandchildren; and the restrictions he placed on the Wife's use of the money.

A spouse with separate property, such as the inheritance in this case, must therefore be cautious as to where the money is going to be deposited, how it is going to be used, and who is going to have access.  Otherwise, commingling of such funds can ultimately render it marital property subject to equitable distribution.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As seen in Affluent Magazine.

Divorce for those of substantial wealth relative to those of limited wealth is an oxymoron – aspects of divorce between the two classifications are both similar and yet quite different. In final analysis, it is a question of degree – that is, the number of zeros behind the dollar signs. This summary discussion will deal with certain procedures and aspects of divorce which are similar to both. The distinctions lie in the availability and desirability of various procedural vehicles to the two groups.

Privacy and Confidentiality

Nearest to the hearts of you -- the rich and famous (next to, of course, your money) -- is privacy and confidentiality. None of you in your right mind wants to spread your dirty laundry in public – least of all those of you blessed with substantial wealth. With divorces of such persons being instant grist for media dissemination, generally, it is better for all concerned (especially their children on a whole host of levels) to have disposition of your matter not a matter of public spectacle. All too often, the perceived lesser-advantaged spouse may play the publicity card (or threaten to do so) in order to opt out a financial advantage – or in simple parlance – vie for “hush” money. Perception by the lesser-advantaged spouse that the financially-advantaged spouse will deal with her or him fairly (whatever that may mean) will usually go a long way toward negotiations where calmer minds prevail. Another method of seeking to assure a divorce far from the public eye is for a pre-marital agreement to address issues of confidentiality and mediation and/or arbitration out of the public limelight.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks