Again, quite happy to have the Hon. Lawrence Jones apply his usual level of thought, analysis and sensitivity to the growth and temporally appropriate development of family law in this state.
DeVita has been thrown around by family law attorneys for this per se "one size fits all" prohibition as carelessly as Hughes has been kicked around for the false proposition that a ten year marriage = a long-term marriage = permanent alimony.
IMO, Judge Antell's dissent in this 40-year-old (hardly virgin) 2-1 opinion has been pointing out all along that this Emperor is really quite naked. Judge Jones' Opinion aptly winnows this out. There is a huge difference between appellate review that leaves a trial determination alone and one that specifically mandates a particular outcome, which the Appellate Division did not do in DeVita.
Judge Jones' opinion really clarifies the law in this regard, and it is an important decision with sufficient granularity and insight so that practitioners and judges alike will see the trees within the forest. The case is reminiscent, in a way, of the approach the appellate court took in Morris v. Morris, 263 N.J. Super. 237 (1993) in reconciling the conflicting trial court decisions in Smith v. Smith, 261 N.J. Super. 198 (Ch.Div. 1992), and Finckin v. Finckin, 240 N.J. Super. 204, 206, 572 A.2d 1199 (Ch.Div. 1990) in the context of public policy considerations concerning the enforceability of anti-Lepis clauses; Finckin fer, Smith agin.
Although the outcome was taken as anti-climactic issue-skirting by some, it was an exercise of equitable powers and analysis at its finest. The "equivocal answer to the question of whether an anti-Lepis clause is enforceable... is both yes and no."
As Albert Einstein once said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Kudos again, Judge Jones!
------------------------------
Curtis Romanowski Esq.
Senior Attorney - Proprietor
Metuchen NJ
(732)603-8585
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 08-03-2015 15:16
From: Jenny Berse
Subject: Mantle v. Mantle - "DeVita" Restraint
8-3-15 Mantle v. Mantle - DeVita restraint.pdf
"In New Jersey’s legal community, a DeVita restraint is the term used to describe a court order which limits the amount of contact and exposure which a divorcing parent may permit a child to have with the parent’s new girlfriend or boyfriend."
------------------------------
Jenny Berse, Esq.
Cranford NJ
(855) FAM-LAW1
------------------------------