Frank, If money were no object for this lady, I would agree with you. But on a p.l. motion, the chances of getting the order reversed are near zero. And if she loses the interlocutory motion, things look bad for her. A motion for reconsideration forces the judge to deal with the unreasonableness of showing 5 apps a week TO THE HUSBAND that should be sent to THE HUSBAND'S LAWYER. That is a simple, straightforward proposition that would be worth filing and winning, OR filing and losing, and then put it away til the end of the case. It speaks volumes. Hanan Re: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order? | | | I assume you are reporting correctlyNo do not got back. Go right to the app div. start with the proposition that a proper pendente lite order maintains the status quo. Not meant to turn the family on its head. Making 5 job applications a week and or sending them to H is an arbitrary decision not designed to do anything to advance this case. It's judicial arbitrariness the app div should take note. You may not get anywhere but you can politely blast this trial court to presumably more enlightened colleagues. And you may get fees. This is a shame but you are not a Maytag repairman. You did not make this washing machine. Do not make case a cause célèbre. Get paid.
Sent from my iPhone
|
| Reply to Group Online View Thread Recommend Forward |
Original Message------
Thanks. I have gotten two calls already, both of whom are shocked by the order's terms. So the judge does this, and it costs my client money for me to go back. Robert E. Goldstein, Esq.
Drescher & Cheslow, P.A. 610 Bridge Plaza Drive Manalapan, NJ 07726 (732) 972-1600
Fax (732) 972-0038
E-mail: [email protected]
Member, Middlesex County Bar Association, New Jersey Association for Justice and New Jersey State Bar Association
|
|
|
|
13.
RE: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Posted 10-28-2015 06:23 PM
I understand but there are times when the app div has to see what's going on. Even sending letters to H's lawyer makes no sense. What if she applies to McD's is offered a job and turns it down because she has no way to get kids someplace. Letters to H's lawyer is no evidence of anything. The Family Part is in deep trouble. I'm seeing one dumb ruling after another. How many motions for recon does anyone win?
Sent from my iPhone
Original Message------
 |
Frank, If money were no object for this lady, I would agree with you. But on a p.l. motion, the chances of getting the order reversed are near zero. And if she loses the interlocutory motion, things look bad for her. A motion for reconsideration forces the judge to deal with the unreasonableness of showing 5 apps a week TO THE HUSBAND that should be sent to THE HUSBAND'S LAWYER. That is a simple, straightforward proposition that would be worth filing and winning, OR filing and losing, and then put it away til the end of the case. It speaks volumes. Hanan Re: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order? | | | I assume you are reporting correctlyNo do not got back. Go right to the app div. start with the proposition that a proper pendente lite order maintains the status quo. Not meant to turn the family on its head. Making 5 job applications a week and or sending them to H is an arbitrary decision not designed to do anything to advance this case. It's judicial arbitrariness the app div should take note. You may not get anywhere but you can politely blast this trial court to presumably more enlightened colleagues. And you may get fees. This is a shame but you are not a Maytag repairman. You did not make this washing machine. Do not make case a cause célèbre. Get paid.
Sent from my iPhone
|
| Reply to Group Online View Thread Recommend Forward | |
|
|
|
|
14.
RE: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Posted 10-29-2015 07:28 PM
I'm sure you already know the case law on this, but from a recent letter brief: On an application for pendente lite support, the obligation of the Court is to maintain the status quo that existed prior to the filing of a complaint seeking to dissolve the marriage. See, e.g., Boardman v. Boardman, 314 N.J.Super. 340 (App.Div. 1998), Rose v. Csapo, 359 N.J.Super. 53, 58 (Ch.Div. 2002), citing Crowe v. De Gioia, 90 N.J. 126, 130 (1982), Schiff v. Schiff, 116 N.J.Super. 546, 562 (App.Div.1971), certif.den. 60 N.J. 139 (1972), Mallamo v. Mallamo, 280 N.J.Super. 8, 12, (App.Div.1995).
It does sound like a curious ruling. If the Wife has been out of the workplace for 14 years and they have young children, it's pretty clearly a modification of the status quo to require her to suddenly engage in an aggressive job search.
But, as others said, it's hard to second-guess without seeing both sides -- were there unusual circumstances of some kind that justified the ruling? I can't imagine any that would outweigh the pretty well-established law on this issue, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If there are none, then - I agree that a reconsideration motion may be the way to go.
I also strongly second (or third) that an interlocutory appeal would have a near-zero (at best) chance at best of being successful. And that's an optimistic assessment. Even if March 2016 was here now and a financial crisis caused by the order, I still don't see the App Div stepping in.
------------------------------ _______________________ David Perry Davis, Esq. 112 West Franklin Avenue Pennington, NJ 08534 www.FamilyLawNJ.proVoice: 609-737-2222 Fax: 609-737-3222 _______________________
Original Message:
Sent: 10-28-2015 18:22
From: Francis Grather
Subject: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
I understand but there are times when the app div has to see what's going on. Even sending letters to H's lawyer makes no sense. What if she applies to McD's is offered a job and turns it down because she has no way to get kids someplace. Letters to H's lawyer is no evidence of anything. The Family Part is in deep trouble. I'm seeing one dumb ruling after another. How many motions for recon does anyone win?
Sent from my iPhone
15.
RE: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Posted 10-29-2015 07:47 PM
Does anyone have input on whether the Court has the authority to order someone to get a job at all? The Court can clearly order someone to pay child support as if they were employed, or modify their entitlement to spousal support as a result of imputed income, but on what grounds can a Court force a person to work when it is unrelated to some other right or obligation? Has this been approved by the Appellate Division in any reported decisions? It may be a tenuous argument (disclaimer: I haven't read any relevant cases), but you might attack such an order under the 13th Amendment's ban on involuntary servitude: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." The 13th Amendment does not, by its plain language, require that the work be uncompensated. Presumably, a Court Order requiring a person to get a job is enforceable under Rule 1:10-3 through coercive incarceration. Ordering an individual to work who has not been convicted of a crime, on threat of incarceration, seems a serious deprivation of liberty. Assuming we support our children and other dependents, is there no inherent right to be lazy and unemployed? --- ANDREW M. SHAW, ESQ. Divorce & Family Law Attorney DeTommaso Law Group, LLC 73 Grove Street Somerville, NJ 08876 Phone: (908) 595-0340 Fax: (908) 595-0343 This message is a confidential communication for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately and erase this message. If you are not a current client of the DeTommaso Law Group, this message is neither intended to constitute legal advice nor to establish an attorney-client relationship. If you have not signed a retainer with this firm, we are not your attorneys and we do not represent you in any capacity.
Original Message------
I'm sure you already know the case law on this, but from a recent letter brief: On an application for pendente lite support, the obligation of the Court is to maintain the status quo that existed prior to the filing of a complaint seeking to dissolve the marriage. See, e.g., Boardman v. Boardman, 314 N.J.Super. 340 (App.Div. 1998), Rose v. Csapo, 359 N.J.Super. 53, 58 (Ch.Div. 2002), citing Crowe v. De Gioia, 90 N.J. 126, 130 (1982), Schiff v. Schiff, 116 N.J.Super. 546, 562 (App.Div.1971), certif.den. 60 N.J. 139 (1972), Mallamo v. Mallamo, 280 N.J.Super. 8, 12, (App.Div.1995).
It does sound like a curious ruling. If the Wife has been out of the workplace for 14 years and they have young children, it's pretty clearly a modification of the status quo to require her to suddenly engage in an aggressive job search.
But, as others said, it's hard to second-guess without seeing both sides -- were there unusual circumstances of some kind that justified the ruling? I can't imagine any that would outweigh the pretty well-established law on this issue, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If there are none, then - I agree that a reconsideration motion may be the way to go.
I also strongly second (or third) that an interlocutory appeal would have a near-zero (at best) chance at best of being successful. And that's an optimistic assessment. Even if March 2016 was here now and a financial crisis caused by the order, I still don't see the App Div stepping in.
------------------------------
_______________________
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
_______________________
------------------------------
16.
RE: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Posted 10-29-2015 07:54 PM
See Bencivenga v. Bencivenga, 254 N.J. Super. (App. Div. 1992)("The fact that no court will actually order defendant to go to work does not mean that it cannot impute income to her, Aronson v. Aronson, 245 N.J. Super. 354, 361, 585 A.2d 956 (App.Div. 1991); Arribi v. Arribi, 186 N.J. Super. 116, 118, 451 A.2d 969 (Ch.Div. 1982), and impose a fair obligation to care for her first two children like her obligations to her second two.") _____________________________________ Brian G. Paul, Esq. Certified Matrimonial Law Attorney Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, P.C. 101 Grovers Mill Road Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 Phone: 609-275-0400 Direct Fax: 609-779-6065 [email protected] 
Original Message------
Does anyone have input on whether the Court has the authority to order someone to get a job at all? The Court can clearly order someone to pay child support as if they were employed, or modify their entitlement to spousal support as a result of imputed income, but on what grounds can a Court force a person to work when it is unrelated to some other right or obligation? Has this been approved by the Appellate Division in any reported decisions? It may be a tenuous argument (disclaimer: I haven't read any relevant cases), but you might attack such an order under the 13th Amendment's ban on involuntary servitude: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." The 13th Amendment does not, by its plain language, require that the work be uncompensated. Presumably, a Court Order requiring a person to get a job is enforceable under Rule 1:10-3 through coercive incarceration. Ordering an individual to work who has not been convicted of a crime, on threat of incarceration, seems a serious deprivation of liberty. Assuming we support our children and other dependents, is there no inherent right to be lazy and unemployed? --- ANDREW M. SHAW, ESQ. Divorce & Family Law Attorney DeTommaso Law Group, LLC 73 Grove Street Somerville, NJ 08876 Phone: (908) 595-0340 Fax: (908) 595-0343 This message is a confidential communication for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately and erase this message. If you are not a current client of the DeTommaso Law Group, this message is neither intended to constitute legal advice nor to establish an attorney-client relationship. If you have not signed a retainer with this firm, we are not your attorneys and we do not represent you in any capacity.
17.
RE: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Posted 10-30-2015 08:42 AM
That, in turn, raises the issue: In considering whether to impute income to a parent when calculating child support, the court must determine whether the parent is "voluntarily underemployed, without just cause" in accordance with Appendix IX, Paragraph 12 of the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines. Dorfman v. Dorfman, 315 N.J. Super. 511 (App. Div. 1998) (emphasis added).
I would ask the judge to support the finding that this mother of three unemployed for 14 years did not have just cause to remain so through the pendente lite phase of a divorce...
___
Michael A. Conte, Esquire Ulrichsen Rosen & Freed LLC 114 Titus Mill Road, Unit 200 Pennington, NJ 08534 Direct Dial: (609) 559-1959
Original Message------
See Bencivenga v. Bencivenga, 254 N.J. Super. (App. Div. 1992)("The fact that no court will actually order defendant to go to work does not mean that it cannot impute income to her, Aronson v. Aronson, 245 N.J. Super. 354, 361, 585 A.2d 956 (App.Div. 1991); Arribi v. Arribi, 186 N.J. Super. 116, 118, 451 A.2d 969 (Ch.Div. 1982), and impose a fair obligation to care for her first two children like her obligations to her second two.") _____________________________________ Brian G. Paul, Esq. Certified Matrimonial Law Attorney Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, P.C. 101 Grovers Mill Road Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 Phone: 609-275-0400 Direct Fax: 609-779-6065 [email protected]
18.
RE: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Posted 10-30-2015 11:52 AM
I don't think that anyone is disputing the Court's right to impute income. What I think the concerns in this case are:
a) The order was issued in contravention of what a PL motion is designed to do, which is maintain the status quo. b) The order was issued without a hearing: the issues being raised here are factually sensitive and should not have been decided without testimony c) The order was issued without a factual or legal basis for the decision.
Another issue that bothers me is the automatic reduction of child support on May 1. That also is in contravention of the law. If Wife can show that she has made a diligent attempt to find work but, due to legitimate reasons (lack of experience, education, etc.), she is receiving no offers, it is not voluntary unemployment.
Original Message------
That, in turn, raises the issue: In considering whether to impute income to a parent when calculating child support, the court must determine whether the parent is "voluntarily underemployed, without just cause" in accordance with Appendix IX, Paragraph 12 of the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines. Dorfman v. Dorfman, 315 N.J. Super. 511 (App. Div. 1998) (emphasis added).
I would ask the judge to support the finding that this mother of three unemployed for 14 years did not have just cause to remain so through the pendente lite phase of a divorce...
___
Michael A. Conte, Esquire Ulrichsen Rosen & Freed LLC 114 Titus Mill Road, Unit 200 Pennington, NJ 08534 Direct Dial: (609) 559-1959
19.
RE: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Posted 10-28-2015 06:40 PM
 |
Frank, my good friend: There are lots of reasons to file a MFR, sometimes strategic, sometimes with a strong sense of "we should win this one". The main purpose is to give folks a shot at redemption below, before they have to belabor the same points to the App Div. – which won't have to hear them if the trial judge reverses course as requested. I know you know that. In this case, if the Judge switched the requirement from "show the Husband" to "show the husband's lawyer", you might say it is a waste of time, but not destructive of the litigant's sense of self. That is just a terrible ego blow to a party in Wife's circumstances: show your Husband how hard you are trying? Every single week? Upon pain of a violation of litigant's rights? How would the Husband respond if the Judge said "Show the Wife 5 books and 5 movies a week that you want your kids to see, to make sure she approves"? I am being a little stereotypic here, but I hope the point is made. It may seem Mickey Mouse, but forcing a party to seek out jobs and report them to someone is a mild form of coercive accountability, towards a greater goal: to get Wife employed. I have had judges do this in cases. Don't show the other spouse, but rather show the court or the other side's attorney. Having the court do it is probably impractical. Having the other party's lawyer do it is simple enough, s/he has a need to know, and it involves a much smaller ego assault, IMO. Enough said, at least by me. Tell us how it turns out, Bobby. Hanan Re: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order? | | | I understand but there are times when the app div has to see what's going on. Even sending letters to H's lawyer makes no sense. What if she applies to McD's is offered a job and turns it down because she has no way to get kids someplace. Letters to H's lawyer is no evidence of anything. The Family Part is in deep trouble. I'm seeing one dumb ruling after another. How many motions for recon does anyone win?
Sent from my iPhone
|
| Reply to Group Online View Thread Recommend Forward |
Original Message------
|
Frank, If money were no object for this lady, I would agree with you. But on a p.l. motion, the chances of getting the order reversed are near zero. And if she loses the interlocutory motion, things look bad for her. A motion for reconsideration forces the judge to deal with the unreasonableness of showing 5 apps a week TO THE HUSBAND that should be sent to THE HUSBAND'S LAWYER. That is a simple, straightforward proposition that would be worth filing and winning, OR filing and losing, and then put it away til the end of the case. It speaks volumes. Hanan Re: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order? | | | I assume you are reporting correctlyNo do not got back. Go right to the app div. start with the proposition that a proper pendente lite order maintains the status quo. Not meant to turn the family on its head. Making 5 job applications a week and or sending them to H is an arbitrary decision not designed to do anything to advance this case. It's judicial arbitrariness the app div should take note. You may not get anywhere but you can politely blast this trial court to presumably more enlightened colleagues. And you may get fees. This is a shame but you are not a Maytag repairman. You did not make this washing machine. Do not make case a cause célèbre. Get paid.
Sent from my iPhone
|
| Reply to Group Online View Thread Recommend Forward | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20.
RE: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Posted 10-28-2015 07:30 PM
What if the wife would like to obtain the necessary education and/or training to obtain a decent job? Shouldn't this be a better goal in the appropriate circumstances than forcing her to obtain a minimum wage job? Robert E. Goldstein, Esq. Drescher & Cheslow, P.A. (732) 972-1600 [email protected]Visit my website: www.mydivorcelawyernj.com
Original Message------
|
Frank, my good friend: There are lots of reasons to file a MFR, sometimes strategic, sometimes with a strong sense of "we should win this one". The main purpose is to give folks a shot at redemption below, before they have to belabor the same points to the App Div. – which won't have to hear them if the trial judge reverses course as requested. I know you know that. In this case, if the Judge switched the requirement from "show the Husband" to "show the husband's lawyer", you might say it is a waste of time, but not destructive of the litigant's sense of self. That is just a terrible ego blow to a party in Wife's circumstances: show your Husband how hard you are trying? Every single week? Upon pain of a violation of litigant's rights? How would the Husband respond if the Judge said "Show the Wife 5 books and 5 movies a week that you want your kids to see, to make sure she approves"? I am being a little stereotypic here, but I hope the point is made. It may seem Mickey Mouse, but forcing a party to seek out jobs and report them to someone is a mild form of coercive accountability, towards a greater goal: to get Wife employed. I have had judges do this in cases. Don't show the other spouse, but rather show the court or the other side's attorney. Having the court do it is probably impractical. Having the other party's lawyer do it is simple enough, s/he has a need to know, and it involves a much smaller ego assault, IMO. Enough said, at least by me. Tell us how it turns out, Bobby. Hanan Re: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order? | | | I understand but there are times when the app div has to see what's going on. Even sending letters to H's lawyer makes no sense. What if she applies to McD's is offered a job and turns it down because she has no way to get kids someplace. Letters to H's lawyer is no evidence of anything. The Family Part is in deep trouble. I'm seeing one dumb ruling after another. How many motions for recon does anyone win?
Sent from my iPhone
|
| Reply to Group Online View Thread Recommend Forward | |
|
|
|
|
21.
RE: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Posted 10-28-2015 09:54 PM
Bobby If those facts are operative and stated in good faith, then of course they should be taken into consideration. Did Wife so certify to the court? Hanan |
|
|
Original Message------
Colleagues:
I just received a pendente lite order. I represent the wife. There are 3 kids: 13, 10 and 8. My client has not worked outside the home during the marriage for 14 years, with the exception of a 5 hour per week part time job a few years back in order to get one of the children to have free tuition for a county pre-K enrichment program. She takes the kids all over to various sports activities they play in and also brings them to and picks them up from school because, although they live more than 1 mile from their schools, the district does not provide bussing unless they live at least 2.5 miles away from the school. This information was provided to the judge in my client’s reply certification.
Husband cross-moved pendente lite to compel my client to submit proof each week to him that she is actively seeking gainful employment by submitting a minimum of 5 job applications each week to him and attending job interviews with proof in writing that she has done so on a weekly basis. The judge granted this part of the husband’s cross-motion! The judge further ordered that my client MUST secure employment by March 1, 2016. She ordered that her support order be reduced by $1000 per month (basically what she felt a 35 hour per week minimum wage job would earn her) as of March 1, 2016.
It’s my opinion that the judge overstepped her authority by this order. She can impute income to my client (although I maintain she has to have sufficient evidence to do so). I am looking for legal authority that the judge abused her discretion in this case and that her order for my client to submit proof to her husband each week of a minimum of 5 job applications she has made and that she has attended job interviews is improper.
Can anybody give me some guidance?
Thanks in advance. ------------------------------
Robert Goldstein Esq.
Manalapan NJ
(732)972-1600
------------------------------
22.
RE: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Posted 10-29-2015 10:39 AM
Bob: One last shot. Since the consensus is you go back to trial Court _ I do not necessarily disagree – the cases are Johnson v. Cyclops 220 NJSuper 250 and D'Atria v. D'Atria 242NJSuper 392 – setting the standard of review. Pretty high standard if you read them but your case meets it. "Palpably incorrect or irrational basis . . . " Plus what was done here should not have been done without a hearing. Lots of irrationality here. Who can make 5 meritorious job apps a week? The order turns the supported spouse who has foresworn a career to stay home and raise the children and who by statute is presumed to have made a substantial financial contibution to the marriage into something very different, pendent lite. Good luck.
Original Message------
Bobby If those facts are operative and stated in good faith, then of course they should be taken into consideration. Did Wife so certify to the court? Hanan |
|
|
23.
RE: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Posted 10-28-2015 10:42 PM
Have you seen the Maine v. Maine case, unpublished but may be of some assistance ------------------------------ Jenny Berse, Esq. Cranford, NJ (855) FAM-LAW1 (855) 326-5291
Original Message:
Sent: 10-28-2015 15:59
From: Robert Goldstein
Subject: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Colleagues:
I just received a pendente lite order. I represent the wife. There are 3 kids: 13, 10 and 8. My client has not worked outside the home during the marriage for 14 years, with the exception of a 5 hour per week part time job a few years back in order to get one of the children to have free tuition for a county pre-K enrichment program. She takes the kids all over to various sports activities they play in and also brings them to and picks them up from school because, although they live more than 1 mile from their schools, the district does not provide bussing unless they live at least 2.5 miles away from the school. This information was provided to the judge in my client’s reply certification.
Husband cross-moved pendente lite to compel my client to submit proof each week to him that she is actively seeking gainful employment by submitting a minimum of 5 job applications each week to him and attending job interviews with proof in writing that she has done so on a weekly basis. The judge granted this part of the husband’s cross-motion! The judge further ordered that my client MUST secure employment by March 1, 2016. She ordered that her support order be reduced by $1000 per month (basically what she felt a 35 hour per week minimum wage job would earn her) as of March 1, 2016.
It’s my opinion that the judge overstepped her authority by this order. She can impute income to my client (although I maintain she has to have sufficient evidence to do so). I am looking for legal authority that the judge abused her discretion in this case and that her order for my client to submit proof to her husband each week of a minimum of 5 job applications she has made and that she has attended job interviews is improper.
Can anybody give me some guidance?
Thanks in advance. ------------------------------
Robert Goldstein Esq.
Manalapan NJ
(732)972-1600
------------------------------
24.
RE: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Posted 10-29-2015 08:31 AM
Sometimes in our family law, matters are so basic that fundamentals are overlooked. Whomever this judge is, she is derivatively punishing a child for what she believes to be the mother's dalliances. Fundamentally inappropriate on that level. I would file a reconsideration motion, starting with Gotlib (I call it the "Alice Case," since Ms. Gotlib's first two names are Linda Lavin.
Consider this excerpt:
Furthermore, payments to offset un- reimbursed medical expenses are intended to provide essential benefits to the parties' children. In this light, the right to receive these payments belongs to the children, and is therefore not subject to waiver by a custodial parent. See L.V., supra, 347 N.J.Super. at 41, 788 A.2d 881 (citing Kopak, supra, 4 N.J. at 333, 72 A.2d 869; Martinetti, supra, 261 N.J.Super. at 513, 619 A.2d 599; Savarese, supra, 311 N.J.Super. at 246, 709 A.2d 829). Stated differently, even in the face of plaintiff's failure to abide strictly to the provisions of the JOD requiring her to discuss the children's doctor visits with defendant prior to incurring expenses for services rendered, or her failure to bill the defendant on a monthly basis, a court reviewing a motion to enforce litigant's rights may not “impute to a child the custodial parent's negligence, purposeful delay or obstinacy so as to vitiate the child's independent right of support from a natural parent.” Id. at 40, 788 A.2d 881 (citing Perez, supra, 21 Cal.App.3d 870, 97 Cal.Rptr. 920; Ellison, supra, 834 P.2d 680).
Gotlib v. Gotlib, 399 N.J. Super. 295, 306 (App. Div. 2008)
------------------------------ Curtis Romanowski Esq. Senior Attorney - Proprietor Metuchen NJ (732)603-8585
Original Message:
Sent: 10-28-2015 22:42
From: Jenny Berse
Subject: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Have you seen the Maine v. Maine case, unpublished but may be of some assistance ------------------------------
Jenny Berse, Esq.
Cranford, NJ
(855) FAM-LAW1
(855) 326-5291
25.
RE: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
Posted 10-29-2015 07:38 PM
 |
I agree with David. I focused more on the emotional damage to Wife caused by the weekly reporting obligation TO THE HUSBAND. But clearly, the p.l. status quo is that of a woman returning to the marketplace after 14 years of taking care of kids and having part time work. Why are we bringing in the heavy guns now, Judge?
Hanan Re: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order? | | | I'm sure you already know the case law on this, but from a recent letter brief: On an application for pendente lite support, the obligation of the Court is to maintain the status quo that existed prior to the filing of a complaint seeking to dissolve the marriage. See, e.g., Boardman v. Boardman, 314 N.J.Super. 340 (App.Div. 1998), Rose v. Csapo, 359 N.J.Super. 53, 58 (Ch.Div. 2002), citing Crowe v. De Gioia, 90 N.J. 126, 130 (1982), Schiff v. Schiff, 116 N.J.Super. 546, 562 (App.Div.1971), certif.den. 60 N.J. 139 (1972), Mallamo v. Mallamo, 280 N.J.Super. 8, 12, (App.Div.1995). It does sound like a curious ruling. If the Wife has been out of the workplace for 14 years and they have young children, it's pretty clearly a modification of the status quo to require her to suddenly engage in an aggressive job search. But, as others said, it's hard to second-guess without seeing both sides -- were there unusual circumstances of some kind that justified the ruling? I can't imagine any that would outweigh the pretty well-established law on this issue, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If there are none, then - I agree that a reconsideration motion may be the way to go. I also strongly second (or third) that an interlocutory appeal would have a near-zero (at best) chance at best of being successful. And that's an optimistic assessment. Even if March 2016 was here now and a financial crisis caused by the order, I still don't see the App Div stepping in. ------------------------------
_______________________
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
_______________________
------------------------------ |
| Reply to Group Online View Thread Recommend Forward |
Original Message:
Sent: 10-28-2015 18:22
From: Francis Grather
Subject: Has the judge exceeded her authority by this order?
I understand but there are times when the app div has to see what's going on. Even sending letters to H's lawyer makes no sense. What if she applies to McD's is offered a job and turns it down because she has no way to get kids someplace. Letters to H's lawyer is no evidence of anything. The Family Part is in deep trouble. I'm seeing one dumb ruling after another. How many motions for recon does anyone win?
Sent from my iPhone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread already has a best answer. Would you like to mark this message as the new best answer?
|
|
|