In addition, the judge discussed the "special circumstances" of gay couples who often had years of a committed relationship before being able to legally formalize it in 2004 or 2006, concluding that the period of equitable distribution began at the formation of the parties' relationship in 1999 rather than their establishment of the domestic partnership in 2004.

This case is important in terms of the court's consideration of the entire span of a committed same sex relationship,  since no legal recognition was available until 2004.

Whether the decision will be appealed is unknown; however, it represents the first step in what  some family lawyers, including myself, believe will be the evolution of expanded rights and remedies for same sex couples in New Jersey.

In Quarto v. Adams the Appellate Division rejected a constitutional challenge by two women who claimed that their 2003 Canadian marriage entitled them to full parity with heterosexual married couples, including the right to file a joint income tax return as of October 25, 2006, the same day the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its decision in Lewis v. Harris granting same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.                       

The appeals court ruled that New Jersey's recognition of the relationship would, however, begin on February 19, 2007, the same day the  New Jersey Civil Union law went into effect. This was also the same day that the New Jersey Attorney General's Office issued a formal opinion granting recognition to same sex marriages from Canada and some other nations.

The result is that same sex couples will be allowed to file joint New Jersey income taxes beginning in 2007.

The legal impact is that persons may now file for divorce without having to allege marital fault against their spouse or await the expiration of eighteen months separation. The law will remove some but not all of the animosity in divorce since the great majority of cases are more vigorously contested with regard to such issues as custody, parenting time, alimony, child support and division of marital assets. Nonetheless, lawyers welcome the new law since we know that except in rare instances where egregious fault may be considered by the court, marital fault is not a factor in the financial aspects of divorce. Even in custody cases, the fact that one's spouse has committed marital fault is not determinative. That person may at the same time have no parental faults, although there are situations where underlying problems such as anger may be important.

Finally, the new law does not replace other grounds for divorce such as adultery, desertion or extreme cruelty which still have their rightful place. The important thing is that each case is fact-sensitive. As a matrimonial attorney for thirty years, my advice to anyone considering divorce is to learn not only your legal rights but responsibilities, retain a specialized lawyer, discount advice from family and friends no matter how well-intentioned and, once armed with knowledge and guidance, prioritize your issues.

Technorati Tags: New Jersey : Irreconcilable Differences

While the ruling stands in the mainstream of New Jersey law with respect to the responsibilities of divorced parents toward their children's undergraduate college or vocational school expenses, it should be noted that each such case involves a variety of factors utilized by attorneys and the courts. In more rare cases, courts have found that a divorced parent can even be held responsible for his or her child's post-graduate or professional school expenses.

Technorati Tags: New Jersey : Divorce : College Costs

If passed, bill A-483 would mean that if a person can prove that irreconcilable differences have caused the breakdown of the marriage for six months and which make it appear that the marriage should be dissolved and there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation, a divorce should be entered.

Under current New Jersey law, the only "no fault" ground for divorce requires 18 months separation in different households with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.  Although similar bills have been introduced during the past, this is the first time "irreconcilable differences" has enjoyed wide legislative support. It should be noted, however, that opponents of the bill are contending that the 6 month period is too short for couples to work through their problems. Nonetheless, the sponsors of A-483 are optimistic of the bill's eventual passage.

I will be updating this article as bill A-483 proceeds through the legislative process.

Technorati Tags: New Jersey : Divorce : Irreconcilable Differences

This week's New Jersey Legal Update is presented by John Eory, a member of Stark & Stark’s Divorce Group.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 50 here. (5.7 MB)

Technorati Tags: New Jersey : Podcast :  Divorce : Gay Marriage : Lewis v. Harris

Today, the Court issued its opinion which gave the State legislature180 days to either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure which will allow same-sex couples to exercise their full constitutional rights.

For more information see our media advisory on this decision here.

Technorati Tags: New Jersey : Same-Sex Marriage : Lewis v. Harris : Gay Marriage

The 2004 New Jersey Domestic Partnership Act did not address these issues. As a result, attorneys have looked for guidance in other contexts, such as whether a "psychological parent-child relationship" exists. This would be of significant importance with regard to custody and visitation upon the breakup of a relationship.

In 2000, the New Jersey Supreme Court developed a four-prong test to determine the existence of psychological parenthood. The scope of this article does not permit a detailed discussion and, as we lawyers like to say, every case is "fact specific". Anyone seeking an explanation of their legal rights and responsibilities should contact an experienced New Jersey Family Law attorney.

Technorati Tags: New Jersey : Divorce

Once an attorney has met with a potential client and obtained confidential information, that attorney is then precluded from representing the other spouse. This reality has lead many litigants to schedule interviews with multiple attorneys for no other purpose than preventing the attorney from representing the other party. Attorneys in New Jersey have recently been advised that encouraging such conduct on the part of a potential or new client is unethical. After considering this issue, the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics authored and released Opinion - #73 - which serves notice that an attorney who advises his/her client to contact other lawyers for the purpose of denying their spouse from obtaining representation by counsel of his or her choice constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Technorati Tags: New Jersey : Divorce

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 28 here.(12.2MB)

Want to watch a webcast of the argument of Lewis v. Harris before the Court? Download it here.

Technorati Tags: New Jersey : Podcast : Same-Sex Marriage

On June 28,2005 the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Randazzo v. Randazzo that family court judges have the discretion to order the sale of marital assets prior to a final judgment of divorce when the circumstances of the case so justify. The Justices stated that the standard will be whether such a sale serves the best interests of the parties.

This ruling lays to rest a body of New Jersey decisional law which only permitted the pre-divorce sale of assets in hardship situations such as an imminent foreclosure or in other limited circumstances. The ruling unbinds matrimonial lawyers by allowing them to advance positions to the court which would have had far less chance of success under the old law such as the need to free up dollars for ongoing living expenses, college tuition and other reasons on a case-by-case basis.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the challenge means that gay couples in Massachusetts can still be married. It also leaves open the possibility that similar laws may be enacted in other states, without the current threat of being overturned by the Federal Supreme Court.

This post was authored by Cary Kvitka, a member of the Firm's Divorce Group.

According to the attorney for the suing couples, the ruling was a sign that the Court understood the significance of the issues without indication how it might eventually rule. Whether the outcome will be effected by the New Jersey Domestic Partnership Act remains to be seen since the trial judge had said that it was up to the legislature, not the courts, to deal with rights of same sex couples. It was shortly after that decision that the Act was passed; however, it fell short of affording same sex couples the complete package of benefits associated with marriage, much less dealing with the issue of same sex marriage itself.

The facts involved playing the recording to the parties' children and a "lack of remorse" for such actions at trial. The result was an award of actual damages, as set by statute, and punitive damages consisting of a denial of various marital assets to the violator totaling at least $35,000.

Note: the case was sent back to the trial judge to fix a specific monetary amount of damages instead of the above.

New Jersey Court of Appeals affirms decision to deny defendant's motion for a downward modification of his support obligation. In this matter, the defendant was the primary caretaker of one child while the plaintiff was the primary caretaker of another. The defendant was declared disabled by the Social Security Administration and the child under plaintiff's care began receiving social security benefits.

The defendant is correct in maintaining a valid levy on the bank account of appellant -- now a Florida resident -- for the amount of his child support arrearages. The court held that if the appellant feels he is entitled to relief from his child support obligation because a different agreement was reached or, as he states, another man who is the father of his ex-wife's second and third child has agreed to take over as the supporting parent, he must file a motion in the Family Part where those issues can be properly adjudicated.