Last week, I blogged about the fact that the Supreme Court was going to be hearing argument on the Gnall v. Gnall case on November 12, 2014. I watched part
Continue Reading Is It A Problem That Two Different Judges Can Look At The Same Facts And One Would Say Permanent Alimony And One Would Not?
Nearly everyone who has a judge rule against them thinks that the judge got it wrong. Why litigate if you didn’t think you were right? Judges are human and some times they actually do get it wrong. In those cases it is easy to get their decisions reversed, right? After all, that’s why we have a Appellate Division, right?
Right and wrong. That is why we have an Appellate Division. That said, given the standards of review in family court matters (and in all appellate matters in general), if you were betting, you should bet on the house because more cases are affirmed then reversed. Other cases are remanded, not necessarily because the judge got it wrong, but because she/he did not provide sufficient fact finding in the decision to allow for appellate review.
I have rarely seen the standards of review set forth so cogently then in the unreported (non-precedential) case of Schleiffer v. Schleiffer released on December 6, 2012, citing the recent reported case of Milne v. Goldenberg (previously discussed on this blog).
The standards on appeal, we noted was follows:
In Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184, 197-98 (App. Div. 2012) we recently restated our commitment to the principle that the work of the Family Part will not be disturbed absent compelling circumstances: