NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only
  • 1.  Case / rule / cite / authority of some kind that consolidation isn't affirmative relief

    Posted 12-18-2014 02:28 PM
      |   view attached

    I'm attempting to help someone on a pro bono basis, and, of course, a simple "I'll be a nice guy and write a letter to the judge" has turned into a fiasco over trying to provide authority on one small point.

    Wife is attempting to get an uncontested pro se divorce.  Ex wouldn't sign for the complaint and had to be served.  She figured out to apply for default and went to the hearing yesterday.

    She is seeking no affirmative relief aside from the dissolution of the marriage and the consolidation of an existing final FD order on custody and support.

    The judge (who has literally been on the bench for only a couple of weeks) gave her a form order saying she must file a Notice of Proposed Judgment (R. 5:5-10).

    But.... there's no affirmative relief being sought, so she shouldn't have to try to navigate doing this.  I volunteered to write the judge, but this is one of those things "we just know", yet finding authority to back it has resulted in a huge of time.

    The only thing I can find is a sheet from Middlesex a few years ago (attached) on putting divorces through without a personal appearance, which says it can be done when there are no children / support issues, a signed PSA is supplied, or "when the relief requested is the dissolution of the marriage and the continuation of final Orders entered in other proceedings resolving all issues of custody, [parenting time] and support and where no other issues are presented."

    Anyone aware of any other authority -- of anything that would extend this "common sense" concept to a litigant not having to file and serve a Notice of Proposed Judgment (with an examination of all the statutory factors on custody and support, a CIS, and proof of service, etc)?

    Thanks...


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

    Attachment(s)



  • 2.  RE: Case / rule / cite / authority of some kind that consolidation isn't affirmative relief

    Posted 12-18-2014 06:28 PM
    Doesn't Rule 5:5-10 answer your question?




  • 3.  RE: Case / rule / cite / authority of some kind that consolidation isn't affirmative relief

    Posted 12-18-2014 07:06 PM
    Challenging the Judge's request is going to take longer than complying with it.



    If I were the Judge, I would require a form of proposed final judgment, even if Wife is requesting no affirmative relief – because I wouldn't want either party showing up years later saying "I want affirmative relief."

    Having Wife say "All property and debts have been distributed; neither party seeks alimony; etc." has a value, IMO.



    If Wife is otherwise doing all the paperwork that is required to get a pro se divorce, one more document is not going to kill her.



    Happy Holidays to all!!

    Hanan




  • 4.  RE: Case / rule / cite / authority of some kind that consolidation isn't affirmative relief

    Posted 12-19-2014 03:33 AM

    Keep it simple. Rule is dispositive. We've all seen judges at all levels of experience putting through defaults for pro ses after asking: "So, no children, no property to divide, you're not asking for support, all you really want it not to be married to him/her any longer, correct?"

     The FD is likely not a final order on anything, I would suppose, but that's not stated in the post. AOC directive would have the FD consolidated into the FM, but don't think that's needed here. The FD could just be left alone and the bonds dissolved under the FM.

    IMO it's not a very big deal having her fill out the FPFJ. Pro ses do it all the time, even if they're not John Adams. If she wants the consolidation (her idea?), she can propose it there, but I think her Judge is right.



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




  • 5.  RE: Case / rule / cite / authority of some kind that consolidation isn't affirmative relief

    Posted 12-19-2014 11:57 AM
      |   view attached
    Middlesex is one of the few counties that allows the nonappearance means of putting through a simple divorce. It's even on their website.



    But the Court Rule on Notice of Judgment of Divorce states that it is not necessary if no relief is sought.





    Description: Description: cid:809112918@04052012-2ECF

    Mark F. Saker, Esquire

    Attorney ID #271831971
    Cerrato, Saker & Wilder
    A Professional Corporation
    819 Route 33
    Freehold, New Jersey 07728
    O: (732) 431-5000 X 125
    F: (732) 462-0483
    C: (732) 915-5190
    E: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]



    INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E‑MAIL TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL AND INTENDED ONLY FOR USE BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY INDICATED TO BE THE RECIPIENT. IF THE RECEIVER OF THIS TRANSMISSION IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM WITHOUT COPYING OR FORWARDING IT, AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY REPLY E‑MAIL. THANK YOU!



    TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.

    P Consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Please print this e-mail only if necessary.