David,
Two issues arise:
1. Is the area of proposed expert opinion one that the field of asserted expertise -- and the courts -- recognize and accept?
2. If yes, then does your proposed expert have the necessary background, training, and experience to qualify as an expert in the recognized field?
To the first question: I don't have a case to offer you. It would surprise me greatly if financial planning has not been court approved as an area in which expert opinion has been recognized and welcomed, allowing data and tetestimony regarding forecasting of the marketplace as well as of an individual's or couple's financial future, given certain stated assumptions, such as size of assets, projected growth rates, addition or subtraction of alimony, child support, projected earned incomes, and the "burn rate" of the supported spouse's dollars over time.
The other team is entitled to counter such testimony with an expert of their own.
Under the NJ Rules of Evidence, the relevant standard of court review for proffered expert testimony is the US Supreme Court's Daubert standard, recently adopted by our Supreme Court as well.
To the second question: The individual's expertise to testify, while previous recognition as an expert is helpful, it is not required. If the individual's knowledge, training, and experience are relevant and helpful to the trier of fact, the person's standing as an expert should follow.
Relative inexperience as an expert may go to the weight of the court's consideration, not admissibility.
However, an expert's bare conclusions, unsupported by facts and analysis, will be excluded as a net opinion, even if the field of expertise is recognized and the individual qualifies as an expert.
It is up to the trier of fact, in its sole discretion, to decide how much weight, if any, to give to an expert's opinion -- even if the person is deemed an expert and the opinion is deemed admissible.
Perhaps a CPA will qualify where a CFP does not?
Conclusion:
Satisfy yourself as to questions 1 and 2, and you are good to go. If either one flunks the test, then your case has a major weakness. Proceed accordingly.
Hanan Isaacs
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email transmission and any documents, files, or email messages attached to it, are confidential and protected by the attorney client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not njsba_familylaw_cf6a61b2-2422-4576-b258-d18ea5e3374f@connectedcommunity.org, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, then we hereby notify you that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this email transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, then please immediately notify [email protected] by email -- or by fax to (609) 921-8982 -- or by telephone to (609) 683-7400 -- and then promptly delete the message and any attachments from your computer. Thank you. |