NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only

  • 1.  Quick Rule 4:50-1 pro bono question

    Posted 07-14-2013 02:04 AM
    So I'm sitting in court waiting for an FD case to be heard.

    The case before me has two pro se litigants.  Dad is a professional driver (buses and limos).  Because he got behind on his child support, his license was suspended 8 times in the past 5 years.

    His insurance company found out about the suspensions and indicated that he couldn't be covered (otherwise perfect driving record, he says).  His boss then reluctantly fired him.  He has no other skills.  So now he can't work at all and is falling into arrears on CS.  A nice little Catch-22.

    Also, no license = no way to see the kids, and mom was upset that he wasn't doing so, passing on the children's upset on the issue.

    Judge didn't see what she could do aside from removing the current suspension and giving him time to find work, but that won't cure it -- it's the old suspensions causing the problem.

    After my matter was heard, I was speaking off the record to the judge and asked whether she might consider signing a consent order the reopened under Rule 4:50-1 the orders that suspended his license and removing the suspensions and instructing MVS to take them off his abstract.  She thought it was a great idea, but said "can I do that?  Can I sign a consent order that contains relief under R. 4:50-1"?


    I don't see any reason why not.  Does anyone here see it?  I'd like to draft up a consent order pro bono for the guy and hopefully get him back to work and seeing his kids.


    -------------------------------------------
    - Dave

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


  • 2.  RE:Quick Rule 4:50-1 pro bono question

    Posted 07-14-2013 08:27 AM
    This is a great idea David, however, the court has no jurisdiction over the MVC without noticing them of the proceedings.  I think you are going to need to do it on motion and serve the AGs office.  But if this is done I see no reason why the judge can't enter the order.  Let us all know if it works.

    -------------------------------------------
    Amy Sara Cores, Esq.

    Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
    Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Law Attorney

    Cores & Nachlinger, L.L.C.
    1001 US Highway 9 N
    Suite 205
    Howell, New Jersey 07731

    732 - 414 - 6669 office
    732 - 770 - 2341 cell
    732 - 414 - 6660 fax

    http://www.cnfamilylaw.com

    http://www.facebook.com/cnfamilylaw

    Follow John on twitter @njfamlaw

    Blog: cnfamilylaw.wordpress.com

    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 3.  RE:Quick Rule 4:50-1 pro bono question

    Posted 07-14-2013 11:46 AM
    I agree entirely with the approach suggested by Amy. ------------------------------------------- Hanan Isaacs Esq. Kingston NJ (609)683-7400 -------------------------------------------
    Original Message


  • 4.  RE:Quick Rule 4:50-1 pro bono question

    Posted 07-14-2013 05:14 PM

    Nice work David. What you did is an inspiration. Thank you.

    -------------------------------------------
    Christopher Barbrack Esq.
    Princeton NJ
    (609)497-1111

    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 5.  RE:Quick Rule 4:50-1 pro bono question

    Posted 07-15-2013 06:05 PM
    Thanks for the responses. 

    Question - MVS doesn't get put on notice when a suspension is issued, so if we simply vacate the suspension orders (without specifically ordering MVS to remove them) and I forward that order to MVS with a nice "lawyer letter" cover, wouldn't they have to remove them? 

    I thought of the "no order against non-party" issue, but (for example) probation gets "ordered" to audit accounts, police get "ordered" to enforce orders, so I wasn't focusing on it.  MVS isn't deciding anything, they're just following through on court orders, like probation or cops, no?

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






    Original Message


  • 6.  RE:Quick Rule 4:50-1 pro bono question

    Posted 07-21-2013 09:18 AM
    Should be no problem under R. 4:50-1 (e), specifically, on unopposed motion with notice to AG. Supporting cert should allege reasons why the continued prospective application of order(s) is/are no longer equitable due to changed legal or factual circumstances. Accompanying letter brief should include, among others, DEG, LLC v. Township of Fairfield, 198 N.J. 242 (2009). Although application ultimately failed, In re Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440 (2002) (remand) and In re Guardianship of J.N.H. 182 N.J. 29 (2004) (affirming trial court on remand) are interesting.

    Good for you.
    -------------------------------------------
    Curtis Romanowski Esq.
    Senior Attorney - Proprietor
    Brielle NJ
    (732)603-8585

    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message