As we have written before, alternate dispute resolution is a favored way to resolve divorce matters, whether it be mediation or binding arbitration. One reason that people choose the arbitration route is that they are avoiding the courts that have mandatory reporting of tax issues (failure to report all of the income, etc.). Another reason,
Whataboutism – It isn’t Just for Politics Anymore
So you are in court or maybe on a conference with a judge and you make a factual statement about the other side. Maybe it is about some less than stellar conduct of the other party. Maybe it is about a violation of an Order. Maybe it is about the failure to provide discovery. Could
Child Support and Residing Away from Home at Boarding School: the Logical Extension of the College Support Analysis
The Appellate Division’s July 6, 2021 decision follows nearly a decade of post-judgment divorce litigation between the parties. Defendant appealed three (3) Family Part orders which (1) denied his motion to reopen an arbitration award; (2) denied his motion for reconsideration; and, (3) denied his motion to modify his child support obligation. Plaintiff’s cross-appeal similarly
Appellate Division Defines the Elements a Movant Must Present in Order to Demonstrate a Prima Facie Case of Cohabitation
Six years, nine months and 7 days following the enactment of New Jersey’s amended alimony statute’s cohabitation provision on September 10, 2014 (N.J.S.A. 2A:32-23n) the New Jersey Appellate Division provided long awaited and much needed guidance on what a movant must now present to the trial court to demonstrate a prima facie case of cohabitation
Have Judges Been Getting the Standard for Motions for Reconsideration Wrong All Along?
You see it all of the time. Someone file a motion with the court regarding discovery and/or asking for various pendente lite relief, like temporary support, temporary parenting time and other things that come up during the pendency of a case. Judges are human and sometimes they just get it wrong, either because they get
How is Deferred Compensation that is Granted Pre-Complaint, but Vests Post-Complaint, Divided?
Last week, I blogged on the A.J.V. v. M.M.V. case, specifically, regarding the retroactive application of a savings component. As noted in the post, there was an interesting treatment of deferred compensation in the case.
Specifically, the husband received RSUs as part of his annual compensation which serially vested over 3 years. In this case,
Can a Judge Add a Savings Component to Alimony and Apply it Retroactively to the Beginning of the Case? Does a Frugal Lifestyle Even Matter?
While the issue of savings being a component of alimony has been around for decades, since the Lombardi case in 2016 (which we previously blogged about), the issue of a savings component, especially where parties live reasonably frugally, but save a lot, have become more of a front burner issue.
In Lombardi, the
Remote Proceedings: Zooming Past Litigants’ Due Process Rights By: Arrianna T. Diamantis
In January 2020, the Appellate Division considered an important question: how should a judge assess a party’s request to appear at a trial and present testimony by way of video transmission? The timing of this consideration could not be more fitting considering the challenges presented by a global pandemic, which would shift the future of
Is the Prenuptial Agreement Signed after the Wedding Really a Prenuptial Agreement?
I have seen this more than one time in my career. One party (or his/her family members) really wants there to be a prenuptial agreement but, either due to lack of time, fear/cowardice, not having your act together, or any other reason, the prenup never gets done. Some I have seen signed just after the
Can Judges Rely on Information that is Outside of the Record?
There used to be a family judge, who, with his law clerk, spent a lot of time on Google, looking up property records, Zillow “values” and other information regarding the parties and their property. While most of the time it proved harmless, I was always concerned about the court relying on evidence that was not