NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only

  • 1.  Family Law Section discussions conduct - full moderation

    Posted 07-09-2014 11:06 AM
    Hello Family Law Section members,

    I am sending this reminder about the Code of Conduct on the CommunityNET discussions, relative to the recent dialogue on "amending support when payor at fault." In particular, items 1, 7, 8 and 9 from the Etiquette Guidelines: 

    1. When sending messages, don't challenge or attack others. The discussions and comments are meant to stimulate conversation not to create contention. Let others have their say, just as you may. 

    7.     Keep your questions and comments relevant to the focus of the communities.

    8.     Only send a message to the entire list when it contains information that everyone can benefit from.

    9.     Send messages such as "thanks for the information" or "me, too" to individuals--not to the entire list. Do this by using the "Reply to Sender" link to the right of every message.

    The Family Law Section discussion forum has been placed on full moderation. Only messages relevant to the focus on the Family Law Section will be released.

    -------------------------------------------
    Barbara Straczynski
    Director of New Media and Promotions
    New Jersey State Bar Association
    New Brunswick NJ
    (732) 937-7524
    [email protected]
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Family Law Section discussions conduct - full moderation

    Posted 07-10-2014 11:31 AM

    Dear Family Law Community,

     

    I have a matter wherein a default judgment was entered against the Wife in September 2013.  At that time, Wife was in the hospital & her then attorney did not provide the Court with her medical records to substantiate neither her absence from the entry of default nor from the default judgment hearing.  Wife has a separate pending action against her former attorney.

     

    Wife maintains default judgment was entered due to excusable neglect (that is her former attorney's failure to competently represent her and her whereabouts). Default judgment provides all of husband's pension and life insurance to him and none to Wife or children.  Default sets minimal amount of support $100 per month for child and wrongfully emancipated the other child.

     

    Subsequent to the default judgment, Husband remarries, then dies and leaves all to his new wife.

     

    May first Wife file Rule 4:50 to set aside Default Judgment and if so, may first Wife also assert claims against Husband's pension and life insurance proceeds or did those claims abate with Husband's death?  or  Should first Wife pursue this matter in Probate?

     

    My research and reading of Carr v. Carr discusses death during pendency of divorce proceeding  not death of former spouse after a default judgment was entered (again first Wife asserts default judgment was wrongfully entered ).  

     

    Any thoughts from the Community would be most appreciated.

     

     

    Thank you.

     

     

     

     

    Angela V. Tafro, Esq.

      

    Angela V. Tafro

    Smith & Doran. P.C.

    60 Washington Street

    Morristown, New Jersey 07960

    973-292-0016

    973-292-9168 Fax

    [email protected]

     

    Confidentiality Warning: The information contained in this message and any attachment may be privileged, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments from your computer system and destroy any printout thereof.  If you are a current client of Smith & Doran, P.C., please take note that your company's e-mail policies, as well as federal regulations, may cause this e-mail to lose its privilege.  Therefore, you must check with your corporate IT and/or HR department as to your company's specific e-mail policies.  If you are not a current client of Smith & Doran, P.C., this message does not constitute legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship, which can only be established once a retainer agreement has been fully executed between you and this firm.  For legal advice, please contact and retain an attorney of your own choosing.

     

     

     




    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Family Law Section discussions conduct - full moderation

    Posted 07-10-2014 01:34 PM

    As to the piece concerning your client's hospitalization/her action against her former attorney :

     

    The union issued the check while he was in the rehabilitation center, and sent it to defendant's attorney, Christopher Kirkwood. Defendant certified that for months he believed Kirkwood had turned the funds over to plaintiff. ...When defendant heard that plaintiff had not received the $16,000 check, he contacted Kirkwood, who assured him it "was all taken care of."  Defendant later discovered that Kirkwood deposited the check by forging defendant's name while he was in rehabilitation treatment. All subsequent efforts to locate Kirkwood were unsuccessful... After defendant began to suspect Kirkwood had stolen his money, he retained new counsel. ...Kirkwood was disbarred in New Jersey on January 14, 2014.

     

    http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a2082-12.pdf

     

     

     




    Original Message