NJSBA Family Law Section

My experience is that, whether they are right or wrong, it is best to do what the clerk is asking, if it is relatively easy to do. Beating your head against the wall trying to explain why the clerk is wrong has never gotten me all that far.  And, btw, I agree. You should not have to file a non military cert until you request a default.  You can sue people in the armed forces.  You just cannot enter a default against them. At this point, it should not matter what the defendant's status is

My experience is that, whether they are right or wrong, it is best to do what the clerk is asking, if it is relatively easy to do. Beating your head against the wall trying to explain why the clerk is wrong has never gotten me all that far.  And, btw, I agree. You should not have to file a non military cert until you request a default.  You can sue people in the armed forces.  You just cannot enter a default against them. At this point, it should not matter what the defendant's status is

I think Steve said it well.

HOWEVER, I think there is a fundamental problem spreading throughout the FD docket. There is a belief that the dictates set by the AOC or by the County attempting to "follow" AOC mandates should trump the Court Rules or any case law on point.

On substantive matters, the FD docket is being treated like the "fast track" and there are many factually complicated cases, deserving of the same attention given to clients in the FM docket, who simply have bad luck because they are unmarried. Hearings are being ignored or denied. Evaluations are refused, even in custody cases where the facts are contested.

On a procedural note, applications are being ROUTINELY rejected when not filed on the FD forms despite the Appellate Division stating otherwise. When the issues are addressed with the Court, they require the forms anyway. The forms themselves are not appropriate for clients and situations that do not fit into "checkboxes." There is nothing on the forms which provide for routine pleadings, like an Answer to a Counterclaim (to name just an obvious one).

I don't know when it became routine for the FD docket to marginalize case law and Court Rules simply because it is "FD."  I also don't know when it became appropriate for FD clients to be regulated to checkboxes when FM clients enjoy the benefit of custom-tailored pleadings.

It appears that despite the best efforts to streamline the FD practice so as to alleviate some of the burden for docket and to unify the counties across the state has created a disparity which is prejudicing the clients.

SARAH SAID IT BEST!!!

I was editing an email for the last 10 minutes to say exactly what Sarah enunciated.

But let me add one more thing...How do we as lawyers ignore that due process has been removed from the system involving unmarried - or non-divorcing - couples?

Does anyone else have a problem with having to call and beg for the actual pleadings and exhibits filed by the moving party? How any committee developed and had approved a system that involved sending only a generic notice to the non-filer that a complaint (no, I am sorry, an "application") had been filed rather than the actual pleadings is beyond me.

Carol

Attorney ID #028211987

SARAH SAID IT BEST!!!

I was editing an email for the last 10 minutes to say exactly what Sarah enunciated.

But let me add one more thing...How do we as lawyers ignore that due process has been removed from the system involving unmarried - or non-divorcing - couples?

Does anyone else have a problem with having to call and beg for the actual pleadings and exhibits filed by the moving party? How any committee developed and had approved a system that involved sending only a generic notice to the non-filer that a complaint (no, I am sorry, an "application") had been filed rather than the actual pleadings is beyond me.

Carol

Attorney ID #028211987

I think Steve said it well.

HOWEVER, I think there is a fundamental problem spreading throughout the FD docket. There is a belief that the dictates set by the AOC or by the County attempting to "follow" AOC mandates should trump the Court Rules or any case law on point.

On substantive matters, the FD docket is being treated like the "fast track" and there are many factually complicated cases, deserving of the same attention given to clients in the FM docket, who simply have bad luck because they are unmarried. Hearings are being ignored or denied. Evaluations are refused, even in custody cases where the facts are contested.

On a procedural note, applications are being ROUTINELY rejected when not filed on the FD forms despite the Appellate Division stating otherwise. When the issues are addressed with the Court, they require the forms anyway. The forms themselves are not appropriate for clients and situations that do not fit into "checkboxes." There is nothing on the forms which provide for routine pleadings, like an Answer to a Counterclaim (to name just an obvious one).

I don't know when it became routine for the FD docket to marginalize case law and Court Rules simply because it is "FD."  I also don't know when it became appropriate for FD clients to be regulated to checkboxes when FM clients enjoy the benefit of custom-tailored pleadings.

It appears that despite the best efforts to streamline the FD practice so as to alleviate some of the burden for docket and to unify the counties across the state has created a disparity which is prejudicing the clients.

You're correct in your analysis.   However, you can really tailor their form pleading by attaching a certification and seek relief under "other". 

That said, I suppose you can file whatever you want; it's going to be up to a judge as to whether you get it in a summary proceeding, most of the time.

You're correct in your analysis.   However, you can really tailor their form pleading by attaching a certification and seek relief under "other". 

That said, I suppose you can file whatever you want; it's going to be up to a judge as to whether you get it in a summary proceeding, most of the time.

Then you have been extremely fortunate and I am glad you haven't been subject to what seems to be a widespread problem throughout the state and one encountered by the vast majority of the bar.

My office and offices of my colleagues who have all practice family law exclusively and do so in accordance with the Rules and the case law, also file Certifications in addition to the required "forms" and have taken liberty to modify the forms as needed. I also do not think the "other" section, while helpful, is sufficient to custom tailor applications. We all attach any documents we would normally attach in FM and those we previously attached in FD. We, of course, do not just abandon our responsibility and file a "form."   

Nonetheless, the FD docket has been particularly difficult in the recent past.  They have rejected additional pleadings. Restricted form use. Refused applications not once but multiple times. Disregarded Appellate Division decisions which give us liberty to file applications which do not comply with the "forms."  

Further, it doesn't provide a solution for the disparate treatment of the parties in the different dockets, nor does it address my concern about the "fast track" approach to what is occurring once we get past the procedural problems.

You're correct in your analysis.   However, you can really tailor their form pleading by attaching a certification and seek relief under "other". 

That said, I suppose you can file whatever you want; it's going to be up to a judge as to whether you get it in a summary proceeding, most of the time.

You're correct in your analysis.   However, you can really tailor their form pleading by attaching a certification and seek relief under "other". 

That said, I suppose you can file whatever you want; it's going to be up to a judge as to whether you get it in a summary proceeding, most of the time.

I think Steve said it well.

HOWEVER, I think there is a fundamental problem spreading throughout the FD docket. There is a belief that the dictates set by the AOC or by the County attempting to "follow" AOC mandates should trump the Court Rules or any case law on point.

On substantive matters, the FD docket is being treated like the "fast track" and there are many factually complicated cases, deserving of the same attention given to clients in the FM docket, who simply have bad luck because they are unmarried. Hearings are being ignored or denied. Evaluations are refused, even in custody cases where the facts are contested.

On a procedural note, applications are being ROUTINELY rejected when not filed on the FD forms despite the Appellate Division stating otherwise. When the issues are addressed with the Court, they require the forms anyway. The forms themselves are not appropriate for clients and situations that do not fit into "checkboxes." There is nothing on the forms which provide for routine pleadings, like an Answer to a Counterclaim (to name just an obvious one).

I don't know when it became routine for the FD docket to marginalize case law and Court Rules simply because it is "FD."  I also don't know when it became appropriate for FD clients to be regulated to checkboxes when FM clients enjoy the benefit of custom-tailored pleadings.

It appears that despite the best efforts to streamline the FD practice so as to alleviate some of the burden for docket and to unify the counties across the state has created a disparity which is prejudicing the clients.

I think Steve said it well.

HOWEVER, I think there is a fundamental problem spreading throughout the FD docket. There is a belief that the dictates set by the AOC or by the County attempting to "follow" AOC mandates should trump the Court Rules or any case law on point.

On substantive matters, the FD docket is being treated like the "fast track" and there are many factually complicated cases, deserving of the same attention given to clients in the FM docket, who simply have bad luck because they are unmarried. Hearings are being ignored or denied. Evaluations are refused, even in custody cases where the facts are contested.

On a procedural note, applications are being ROUTINELY rejected when not filed on the FD forms despite the Appellate Division stating otherwise. When the issues are addressed with the Court, they require the forms anyway. The forms themselves are not appropriate for clients and situations that do not fit into "checkboxes." There is nothing on the forms which provide for routine pleadings, like an Answer to a Counterclaim (to name just an obvious one).

I don't know when it became routine for the FD docket to marginalize case law and Court Rules simply because it is "FD."  I also don't know when it became appropriate for FD clients to be regulated to checkboxes when FM clients enjoy the benefit of custom-tailored pleadings.

It appears that despite the best efforts to streamline the FD practice so as to alleviate some of the burden for docket and to unify the counties across the state has created a disparity which is prejudicing the clients.

My experience is that, whether they are right or wrong, it is best to do what the clerk is asking, if it is relatively easy to do. Beating your head against the wall trying to explain why the clerk is wrong has never gotten me all that far.  And, btw, I agree. You should not have to file a non military cert until you request a default.  You can sue people in the armed forces.  You just cannot enter a default against them. At this point, it should not matter what the defendant's status is

My experience is that, whether they are right or wrong, it is best to do what the clerk is asking, if it is relatively easy to do. Beating your head against the wall trying to explain why the clerk is wrong has never gotten me all that far.  And, btw, I agree. You should not have to file a non military cert until you request a default.  You can sue people in the armed forces.  You just cannot enter a default against them. At this point, it should not matter what the defendant's status is

My experience is that, whether they are right or wrong, it is best to do what the clerk is asking, if it is relatively easy to do. Beating your head against the wall trying to explain why the clerk is wrong has never gotten me all that far.  And, btw, I agree. You should not have to file a non military cert until you request a default.  You can sue people in the armed forces.  You just cannot enter a default against them. At this point, it should not matter what the defendant's status is

My experience is that, whether they are right or wrong, it is best to do what the clerk is asking, if it is relatively easy to do. Beating your head against the wall trying to explain why the clerk is wrong has never gotten me all that far.  And, btw, I agree. You should not have to file a non military cert until you request a default.  You can sue people in the armed forces.  You just cannot enter a default against them. At this point, it should not matter what the defendant's status is

My experience is that, whether they are right or wrong, it is best to do what the clerk is asking, if it is relatively easy to do. Beating your head against the wall trying to explain why the clerk is wrong has never gotten me all that far.  And, btw, I agree. You should not have to file a non military cert until you request a default.  You can sue people in the armed forces.  You just cannot enter a default against them. At this point, it should not matter what the defendant's status is

My experience is that, whether they are right or wrong, it is best to do what the clerk is asking, if it is relatively easy to do. Beating your head against the wall trying to explain why the clerk is wrong has never gotten me all that far.  And, btw, I agree. You should not have to file a non military cert until you request a default.  You can sue people in the armed forces.  You just cannot enter a default against them. At this point, it should not matter what the defendant's status is