NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only

  • 1.  Avoiding dual motions / consolodate FV?

    Posted 04-24-2013 02:27 PM
    I represent W.  H ordered to pay $7500 as counsel fees for (extensive) DV trial within 30 days (ordered in February).  After the trial, an FM action was filed.  H is not complying with discovery and a motion is necessary under the FM.  He has refused to pay (in spite of receiving $25,000 bonus, etc) the counsel fee award under the FV.

    I'd obviously like to raise both issues at once (without filing two motions), but I don't think I can seek to enforce an FV order under an FM docket.
    Additionally, a support amount (alimony & CS) was set following the FRO hearing.  H filed a motion to reduce, which we successfully opposed, with the court finding that the amount ordered was appropriate "pending a change in circumstances."  Obviously, I want this order carried over to the FM so H doesn't get "another bite at the apple" by attempting to reduce it again.

    My only thought was to write the judges (FM and FV) and see how they would advise proceeding.

    Any other (better) suggestions?


    -------------------------------------------
    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax: 609-737-3222
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE:Avoiding dual motions / consolodate FV?

    Posted 04-24-2013 03:34 PM
    Motion to conslidate.

    -------------------------------------------
    Robert Goldstein Esq.
    Manalapan NJ
    (732)972-1600

    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 3.  RE:Avoiding dual motions / consolodate FV?

    Posted 04-24-2013 04:41 PM

    David:
     I have filed a motion using both docket numbers in the past in Middlesex, where I think they are a little easier on these type of procedural issues. I like Bob's idea, but would do it in one motion as 1) motion to consolidate, 2) enforce FV, 3) seek FM relief.
     
    -------------------------------------------
    Frank Tournour Esq.
    East Brunswick NJ
    (732)418-9772

    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 4.  RE:Avoiding dual motions / consolodate FV?

    Posted 04-24-2013 06:23 PM
    As a matter of policy, financial matters addressed as articles of emergent relief under the FV, should be moved out of the FV to the FM and consolidated therein, leaving restraints in the FV to preserve the consequences of contempt with the FV.

    Once the support issues are consolidated within the FM, it is important to remember that Lepis does not obtain pendente lite. The correct standard can be found in the JOHNSON v. CYKLOP STRAPPING CORP., 220 N.J. Super. 250 (1987); 531 A.2d 1078.

    In pertinent part:

    We now complete the full circle on which we embarked in Ford v. Weisman by holding unequivocally that review of interlocutory orders by the court prior to final judgment is governed not by R. 4:50 (or Lepis; my edit) but is rather a matter committed to the sound discretion of the court.8 While we thereby relieve the process of trial court review of its interlocutory orders from the constraints of R. 4:50, we nevertheless emphasize that the court's exercise of discretion is not subject to wanton invocation or unfettered judicial response. It is only
    [ 220 N.J. Super. 264 ]

    for good cause shown and in the service of the ultimate goal of substantial justice that the court's discretion should be exercised. Although this standard is necessarily expressed in general terms, it nevertheless is, in our view, endowed with an unmistakable substantive content by the common understanding which underlies our jurisprudence of what is fair, right and just in the circumstances.

    Hope this helps.

    -------------------------------------------
    Curtis Romanowski Esq.
    Senior Attorney - Proprietor
    Brielle NJ
    (732)603-8585

    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message