New Jersey Lawyer & Attorney : Stark & Stark Law Firm : New Jersey Law Blog

Legal Briefs On Divorce is a video podcast series providing viewers with a discussion on timely news and insight on current trends impacting divorce. This installment of Legal Briefs On Divorce is an interview with John S. Eory, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Divorce Group, and Rob Kleeger, Managing Director of the Intelligence Group.

 

Mr. Kleeger conducts digital forensic investigations for divorcing parties in order to gather electronically stored information and put it in a format useful to a divorce case. Mr. Eory and Mr. Kleeger discuss the reasons for digital forensic investigations and what type of information can be gathered for a divorce case.

Legal Briefs On Divorce With John Eory & Rob Kleeger from Stark & Stark on Vimeo.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a just-decided case (Bello-Englesbe v. Englesbe, decided June 5, 2009), a New Jersey appeals court rejected a father's request to reduce child support based on terms of his Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA). The two judge panel ruled that the MSA failed to establish an income baseline from which an application for relief from a support obligation could be measured.

The significance of this ruling is that courts will not presuppose starting points if the divorcing parties do not establish them in their MSA. Attorneys and clients should ensure that such details are addressed and quantified if necessary, to includes parenting schedules, income and earning capacity assumptions, pension division formulas, life insurance provisions, college contribution formulas and so forth.

As this case demonstrates, it pays to "get it right" the first time to avoid future problems occasioned by insufficient explanation or lack of attention to detail.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Legal Briefs On Divorce is a video podcast series providing viewers with a discussion on timely news and insight on current trends impacting divorce. This installment of Legal Briefs On Divorce is an interview with John S. Eory, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Divorce Group, and Tom Hoberman, CPA with the accounting firm of WithumSmith + Brown.

 

Mr. Eory and Mr. Hoberman discuss the need for forensic financial investigations in your divorce, and Mr. Hoberman discusses his experience in conducting investigations in order to uncover fraud, embezzlement schemes, damages and assess internal control weaknesses.

Legal Briefs On Divorce With John Eory & Tom Hoberman from Stark & Stark on Vimeo.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Legal Briefs On Divorce is a video podcast series providing viewers with a discussion on timely news and insight on current trends impacting divorce. This installment of Legal Briefs On Divorce is an interview with John S. Eory, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Divorce Group, and Richard Carabelli, Jr., MAI of Martin Appraisal Associates, Inc. Mr. Eory and Mr. Carabelli discuss the importance of a real estate appraisal in the divorces process.

 

Legal Briefs On Divorce With John Eory & Richard Carabelli from Stark & Stark on Vimeo.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Virtually all opinion polls confirm that same sex marriage legislation is the future. To those who said , "leave it to the people, not judges" the  outcome will be passage of such laws in New Jersey and elsewhere within the foreseeable future.

Acknowledging this as a likely outcome, some legal scholars are already raising questions as to the potential for conflict between such laws and religious liberty. For example, to what extent, if any, should the law protect the rights of "conscientious objectors" to refuse service to married same sex couples in religious-based social service agencies? How far may government  go in requiring religious institutions to accommodate same sex marriage? It is interesting that according to one 2008 survey, when asked if they would favor same sex couples to marry if the law "guaranteed that no church or congregation would be required to perform such marriages", support for same sex marriage jumped from 29% to 43%.

As one commentator put it: "Gay marriage is here to stay. And religious objections to gay marriage are not likely to evaporate anytime soon. Our best option-the one that serves the common good-is to work together to find the right balance between equality and religious freedom, two of our nations most cherished ideals."

Since it is predicted that New Jersey will  have same sex marriage within a year, such issues are the true future of gay marriage.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Legal Briefs On Divorce is a video podcast series providing viewers with a discussion on timely news and insight on current trends impacting divorce. This installment of Legal Briefs On Divorce is an interview with John S. Eory, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Divorce Group, and Len Rossine, Divorce Lending Specialist with Countrywide Home Loans.

 

Mr. Eory and Mr. Rossine discuss the obstacles people will often face when going through a divorce in relation to their mortgage such as, “Can I afford to keep my home after my divorce?” or “What is the best way to split the equity in my home during my divorce?” Mr. Eory and Mr. Rossine offer several possible solutions to these questions and provide tips on how to deal with your financial situation early on in your divorce case.

 

Legal Briefs On Divorce With John Eory & Len Rossine from Stark & Stark on Vimeo.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a case of first impression, a New Jersey appeals court has ordered that the legal doctrine of "specific performance"  applies to ownership of an estranged couple's pet dog and that payment of money damages cannot compensate for the "special subjective benefits"  of pet ownership.

In Houseman v. Dare, decided and approved for publication on March 10, 2009, the court concluded that "There is no reason for a court of equity to be more wary in resolving competing claims for possession of a pet on one party's sincere affection for and attachment to it than in resolving competing claims based on one party's sincere attachment for an inanimate object...".

The case included briefs from Animal Legal Defense Fund and Lawyers in Defense of Animals which both urged the court to adopt a rule that requires consideration of the best interests of the dog. In many households, a dog, cat or other pet is  a "member of the family" with whom lasting attachments are made by adults and children. In such circumstances, Houseman points the way to resolve competing claims and  implicitly elevates the legal status of "man's best friend" and his counterparts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On January 27, 2009, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued an Opinion in the case of Valente v. Valente which shed light on whether alimony should be permanent or of limited duration in an "intermediate length marriage" of 11+ years.  The Court concluded that given the duration of the marriage, the ages of the parties (42) and other factors prescribed by the statute, an award of permanent alimony was not warranted.

 

The case is important to divorcing parties because distinguishing between permanent and limited duration alimony is often unclear in mid-length marriages. The ruling provides guidance with respect to a marriage in excess of ten years being considered of "intermediate length", as opposed to what some attorneys and judges have considered to be of sufficient length to warrant permanent alimony. The legal standards are further complicated by the alimony statute which requires judges to specifically find why permanent alimony is not appropriate before awarding another available type, such as rehabilitative or limited duration alimony.

It is important for divorcing parties to be knowledgeable through their attorneys regarding such issues before making important decisions which will impact their economic futures.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Over the past months, much has been written about the tabloid divorce of former New Jersey governor James McGreevy and Dana Matos McGreevy. While the salacious details made headlines, the legal lessons embedded in the court's 44 page Opinion issued on August 8, 2008 are worth noting for persons contemplating or going through a divorce.

 

Lesson One: Fault Doesn't Matter
The inverse relationship between marital fault and results obtained was dramatically demonstrated as Judge Cassidy found that Ms. Matos McGreevy had advanced unreasonable and ultimately unsupportable arguments based on her husband's extramarital same sex affair. At one point, the Judge referred to Ms. Matos McGreevy's "irresistible urge for retribution" having  "no residual economic consequences". Harsher words from a family court judge are few and far between.
 

Lesson Two: Time is Money
It is enlightening how Judge Cassidy dealt with Ms. Matos McGreevy's alimony claim.  Despite concluding that Mr. McGreevy had an imputed earning capacity of $175,000 per year (an amount far greater than he alleged and a good deal less than Ms.Matos Greevy's expert witness opined), no alimony was awarded. Why? Basically because the court considered it short term marriage (4 ½ years).

          

Lesson Three :  Gamble With Your Own  Money
Ms. Matos McGreevy incurred over $500,000 in legal fees, some of which were to advance two unsuccessful arguments.  First, she hoped the court would agree that she was entitled to maintain a lifestyle in the manner to which she'd become accustomed as first lady of New Jersey. Second, she tried to prove that Mr. McGreevy possessed "celebrity goodwill" which could be quantified; that is, converted into money of which would receive a portion. Both claims were rejected by the court.

 

Why? Judge Cassidy sensibly found that a public servant's lifestyle only exists during the period of public service and is not transferrable to private life. She also correctly determined that Mr. McGreevy had no "celebrity goodwill" since he had no historical earnings attributable to celebrity status, as did, for example, the comedian Joe Piscopo, whose divorce case set the precedent for such relief in New Jersey.  

Since you (and I) are probably not in high public office and don't have celebrity goodwill to worry about, what's the point? Simply that strained legal claims come at a price. Ms. Matos  McGreevy was aware of her chances for success and took them at considerable financial cost. Essentially, she gambled and lost, as Judge Cassidy awarded no legal fees to either party.

Know your rights and responsibilities with regard to divorce. Discuss them with your lawyer. No less, know your exposure in terms of risk, reward and cost. Ask your lawyer. If she or adequately explains them, trust their professional opinion and make your decisions accordingly.  If he or she can't tell you, ask yourself why not, get another opinion and perhaps another lawyer depending on the stakes involved.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a significant opinion issued on June 17, the New Jersey Supreme Court  ruled 6-1 that cohabitation is not an absolute requirement for a successful "palimony" claim but is only one of a number of factors a court should consider.


Th ruling is important because it breaks tradition with precedent set  by nearly every other state court in that a plaintiff need only prove a "marital type relationship" rather than show that the couple lived together for some period of time.


"Palimony" is a term of art for equitable recovery based on a long-term spousal type relationship between two unmarried persons. In most successful palimony claims cohabitation will exist but it is no longer an indispensable element. Instead, the "entirety of the relationship" must now be considered. Thus, persons who have a "marital type relationship" but do not live together for such reasons as employment, educational or military opportunities would qualify under the new  standard.  New Jersey is the first state to rule that cohabitation is not a requirement for palimony.


Although every case is determined on its own facts, the ruling eliminates one long-standing factual requirement and opens the door to new and varied situations which would previously had no legal basis.


It is important that a person involved in such a situation obtain skilled legal advice in determining how to proceed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks