NJSBA Family Law Section

I represent Husband. Wife files a DV TRO.  Same day, she files a pendente lite support motion.

There's plentiful evidence that shows Wife is being less than truthful in the DV action - for examples, claims she is "destitute" and "indigent" and has "no resources of her own."  Husband has a deed (from another country) showing that Wife in fact owns property worth $500,000 with no mortgage, has foreign accounts, etc.  Many other examples exist.

DV trial gets postponed due to translator issues.

Husband's primary concern is the repercussions of the FRO.  For a host of reasons, it would have been especially destructive to him and his business.  Tipping our hand and submitting the proofs we had would have given her the chance to think up a way around them.

Multiple requests to adjourn the pendente lite motion until after the DV trial are denied, even when the reason for the requested delay is explained and even when accompanied by an offer to pay what she's asking for one month, without prejudice.

Husband wins the DV trial, based in large part on credibility issues set forth above. The next day, the FM judge enters a pendente lite order (by default) that gives her (literally) 98% of the household income.

So, I'm working on a motion to address the support order. If we were in a postjudgment situation, he'd have multiple solid grounds under Rule 4:50-1 (fraud, excusable neglect, "catch all"), but it's prejudgment and R. 4:50-1 explicitly only applies to final orders or judgments.

Any suggestions on how to mold a motion on the reconsideration / Rule 4:49-2 standard under these facts? It's not a matter of the judge having "overlooked" anything, and the only "error" I can allege is the denial of the requests for an adjournment.  Best I can come up with at this point is the court's general equity powers and the preference for addressing matters on the merits wherever possible ... Am I missing anything?

Any thoughts at all appreciated.

Grazie,


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

I represent Husband. Wife files a DV TRO.  Same day, she files a pendente lite support motion.

There's plentiful evidence that shows Wife is being less than truthful in the DV action - for examples, claims she is "destitute" and "indigent" and has "no resources of her own."  Husband has a deed (from another country) showing that Wife in fact owns property worth $500,000 with no mortgage, has foreign accounts, etc.  Many other examples exist.

DV trial gets postponed due to translator issues.

Husband's primary concern is the repercussions of the FRO.  For a host of reasons, it would have been especially destructive to him and his business.  Tipping our hand and submitting the proofs we had would have given her the chance to think up a way around them.

Multiple requests to adjourn the pendente lite motion until after the DV trial are denied, even when the reason for the requested delay is explained and even when accompanied by an offer to pay what she's asking for one month, without prejudice.

Husband wins the DV trial, based in large part on credibility issues set forth above. The next day, the FM judge enters a pendente lite order (by default) that gives her (literally) 98% of the household income.

So, I'm working on a motion to address the support order. If we were in a postjudgment situation, he'd have multiple solid grounds under Rule 4:50-1 (fraud, excusable neglect, "catch all"), but it's prejudgment and R. 4:50-1 explicitly only applies to final orders or judgments.

Any suggestions on how to mold a motion on the reconsideration / Rule 4:49-2 standard under these facts? It's not a matter of the judge having "overlooked" anything, and the only "error" I can allege is the denial of the requests for an adjournment.  Best I can come up with at this point is the court's general equity powers and the preference for addressing matters on the merits wherever possible ... Am I missing anything?

Any thoughts at all appreciated.

Grazie,


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