NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only
  • 1.  NJAJ letter opposing filing fees and MCBA resolution

    Posted 03-09-2016 04:21 PM

    Colleagues:

    See attached documents which I have now been authorized to disseminate. The NJAJ civil practice committee is also concerned about these fees.

    There will be a meeting on May 16, 2016 at 5 p.m. with Michelle Smith, Clerk of the Superior Court, to address the filing fee issues. It is currently scheduled to take place at the 2nd floor conference room of the Middlesex County Bar Foundation/Bar Association office at 87 Bayard St., New Brunswick, NJ. If we have a large turnout, we will probably be able to move the meeting to the Middlesex County Family Courthouse.

    If you plan on attending, kindly email either me at [email protected] or MCBA Executive Director Jonathan Cowles at [email protected]. Thank you and I would love to see a significant attendance.

    ------------------------------
    Robert Goldstein Esq.
    Manalapan NJ
    (732)972-1600
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: NJAJ letter opposing filing fees and MCBA resolution

    Posted 03-09-2016 08:06 PM
    Good job, Rob.

    The resolution looks a little more assertive in its statement that the fee is improper as it's a new fee, not an increase in a statutorily authorized fee, but I guess it was being a little political. If there's a verbal discussion, I'd mention it. If the NJSBA wanted to pursue it, I wonder what the best way would be - set up a case, in essence, where default is entered and then someone seeks to vacate it as the fee is unauthorized, and then takes it up? Will the App Div buck the AOC? (They have in at least one matter - see below).

    The part that continues to irk me is that they are not advertising that a waiver is available (perhaps via a sign in the courthouse and on the website explaining the process for seeking a fee waiver).

    Anything we commoners can do to help support it?

    <x-sigsep>

    Please confirm that you received this email and referenced attachments (if any).

    - Dave

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222



    When there is a conflict between a Directive and a statute on an area of substantive law, the former must yield to the latter. See State v. Maurer, 438 N.J.Super. 402 (App.Div. 2014) (in a conflict between AOC Directive as to admission to Drug Court program and a revision to the statute, the Directive must yield as substantive rights implicated). See also, New Jersey Constitution, Article VI, § 2, ¶ 3 ("the Supreme Court shall make rules governing the administration of all courts in the State and, subject to law, the practice and procedure in all such courts."), Winberry v. Salisbury, 5 N.J. 240, 245-46,cert. denied, 340 U.S. 877 (1950), In re P.L. 2001, Chapter 362., 186 N.J. 368, 380 (2006) (defining "pleading and practice" as opposed to substance).

    </x-sigsep>





  • 3.  RE: NJAJ letter opposing filing fees and MCBA resolution

    Posted 03-09-2016 08:25 PM
    My source at NJSBA told me that there is a meeting soon with the Chief Justice where this will be discussed.

    You can help by coming to the May 16 meeting and by requesting that your own county bar take this up and pass a resolution similar to that of the Middlesex County Bar.



    Robert E. Goldstein, Esq.
    Drescher & Cheslow, P.A.
    (732) 972-1600
    [email protected]

    Visit my website: www.mydivorcelawyernj.com