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

In reaction to the Supreme Court's decision in Mani v. Mani (which held that non-economic fault was not relevant to alimony except in "egregious circumstances") and the Appellate Division's decision in Calbi v. Calbi (which did not preclude alimony to a woman who beat and kicked her 14 year old son to death during an alcohol related incident), on April 17, 2009, Governor Corzine signed a bill that did the following:

• It amended the alimony statute to deny alimony to a person convicted of murder, manslaughter, criminal homicide, death by auto, aggravated assault of a similar office in a other jurisdiction if the crime results in the death of a child and is committed after the divorce.
• It eliminated inheritance rights for a surviving parent that abused, abandoned, committed a sexual offense against or negligently endangered the child
• It eliminated under the worker's compensation statutes recovery by a parent who committed those same acts against their child. 

We previously blogged about the tragic Calbi case.  To see that post, click here.

The new law takes effect in July 2009.

Though the Appellate panel in Calbi invited the Legislature to amend the law, it will be interesting to see if there will be further legal challenge to these laws, particularly as to the alimony  and worker's compensation aspects, because of the specific purpose of those laws. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton (Chester County), Pennsylvania office and the editor of our Pennsylvania Family Law Blog, wrote an excellent post entitled "I Want You To Show How Awful She Is", on that blog.

To read the full post, click here.

NJ allows people to seek a divorce on both fault and no fault grounds.  The fault only gets someone a divorce.  Moreover, even before irreconcilable differences was added as a no fault cause of action a few years ago, and we often proceeded on "extreme cruelty" grounds, no one, other than the litigant's cared about the cause of action.  In fact, at the final hearing, when a party testified about the cause of action, the typical questions were to ask whether the contents of the complaint were true, if you had to testify about them on that day, whether your testimony would be substantially the same, and whether it was unreasonable and improper to require the people remain married.

Moreover, as noted in prior posts, the Supreme Court confirmed in Mani v. Mani that fault does not matter in divorce cases except in extreme cases (i.e. the attempted murder of a spouse.)  That said, like Mark noted in his post, if marital assets were used to further the affair, those assets can be recovered. 

Character does not matter as much as credibility, which is more often affected by someone's conduct during the litigation or just before it if there was divorce planning, than who they had an affair with or how they treated their spouse during the marriage.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Previously, I blogged about the trial in the McGreevey divorce.  In that entry, I wondered whether it was the desire for retribution that was driving the case and whether the legal and expert fees exceeded the matters at issue.  To see my prior post, click here.

The decision of the Court was released yesterday and unfortunately I was right.  As for the one party playing the victim throughout and until the end, that was evidenced by Ms. Matos McGreevey's statement released even before the decision was released. 

As to the decision, it was decidedly in favor of Mr. McGreevey on the major issues raised by his wife.  Whether the issues raised were ever real and bona fide issues, that is another story.  In any event, the trial judge was clearly frustrated with the parties and it showed in her decision.  To read the decision click here.

Some of the highlights of the decision and Judgment of Divorce are as follows:

-There is no obligation to pay alimony.  In fact, the Judge found that to the extent that there was a need for alimony, it was caused by the legal fee debt associated with the case.

-Mr. McGreevey's income for support purposes was $175,000 - approximately $25,000 more than his employability expert opined and significantly more than he claimed he could earn as a seminary student. Child support was based upon that income and his wife's former income (she was laid off just prior to the end of the trial.) The Child Support Guidelines were used and then enhanced slightly due in large part to the fact that Mr. McGreevey was being supported by his partner.  He did not get a credit for the support for his other child because he was not currently paying it.

-The wife's claim for celebrity goodwill did not fly nor did her claim that marital lifestyle should be fixed based upon the lifestyle provided by the State of New Jersey to the Governor and First Lady.

-Each side had to pay their own legal fees. 

-The wife's fees total fees were more than $525,000   after receiving a courtesy discount of approximately $125,000.  Only $50,500 had been paid to date.  Mr. McGreevey's fees totaled $498,000 and he had paid only approximately $170,000. 

Given the costs and the results, could it have possibly been all worth it?  Based upon the Court's decision, it seems unlikely.  That is, unless there was a desire to drag the other through the mud and exact vengeance in a public arena.  If that was the victory sought and received by either or both of the parties, then the system failed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With the slew of recent celebrity or notorious divorces in the news lately (i.e. Christie Brinkley, Jim McGreevey, Bill Murray, A-Rod, to name a few), one would think that adultery and other marital fault is really dealt with in the courts and that people are punished for these actions by a Court. 

Maybe they are in other states, but it is not particularly relevant in New Jersey.  In fact, in 2005, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in the Mani v. Mani case, held that marital fault is irrelevant to alimony except in two narrow instances: cases in which the fault negatively affects the economic status of the parties and cases in which the fault so violates societal norms that continuing the economic bonds between the parties would confound notions of simple justice (examples given were attempting to murder the supporting spouse and deliberately infecting a spouse with a loathsome disease.). . 

This is not to say that the conduct is ignored altogether.  If a spouse spent marital funds on a paramour, the fault  is not considered but the other spouse by may be due a credit.  Similarly, if the conduct impacts on the fitness of a parent and/or the best interests of the children, they can be raised in custody and parenting time proceedings. 

While NJ still has fault grounds for divorce (i.e. adultery, extreme cruelty, desertion, voluntary drug addiction, habitual drunkenness, institutionalism for mental illness, imprisonment and deviant sexual conduct), they are not often plead anymore now that the no-fault "irreconcilable differences" cause of action for divorce was enacted.  That said, even when they are plead, all they get you is a divorce. 

Unless there is a limited issue where this is relevant, leave the seedy mudslinging to the celebrities. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks