|
|
 |
|
|
|
 The New Jersey divorce judge properly recalculated the ex-husband's child support by applying gross annual income of $200,000 in applying the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines. It was also appropriate to deviate from the Guidelines by upholding the provision in the New Jersey divorce agreement requiring the ex-husband pay 15.6% of his gross annual income in excess of $200,000.
Russo v. Sanson, New Jersey App. Div. August 28, 2008
 The ex-wife sought an increase in alimony. She appealed from the denial of her application.The New Jersey divorce judge's order is reversed and remanded because the 1990 decision, on which the judge relied, did not make any meaningful judicial fact findings as to the parties’ marital lifestyle. Defendant is also entitled to a plenary hearing on her claim of changed circumstances based on the Social Security Administration’s finding her permanently disabled.
Wolkoff v Wolkoff, App. Div., August 27, 2008
 Retired New York Giants defensive end Michael Strahan will have his child support for his twin daughters reduced. The New Jersey Appellate Division has just reversed the $18,000 a month awarded in the couple's New Jersey divorce and sent the issue back to the lower court on Tuesday. The appeals panel found the judge didn't adequately review how much child support is really needed. The ruling also reversed an order requiring Strahan to pay about $14,000 in his ex-wife's legal and accounting fees. Meanwhile, the Giants might be interested in luring Strahan, who is on vacation in Greece, out of retirement, after losing a Pro Bowl defensive end last weekend to a season-ending knee injury. Will Strahan now "unretire"?
Strahan v. Strahan, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div.); New Jersey App. Div., August 26, 2008
 The
parties were disputing their respective payment
obligations pending the sale of their former New Jersey
marital home. Against the context of conflicting sworn
statements by each party, the New Jersey divorce judge
decided the issue, without a plenary hearing.
Accordingly, the rulings below are reversed and
remanded.
Schmitt v. Schmitt, New Jersey App. Div., August 22, 2008
 The mother appealed the dismissal of her complaint for lack of jurisdiction. She was seeking enforcement of a 1991 Florida child support order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Although Florida no longer has exclusive continuing jurisdiction to modify the orders because neither parent nor their son resides in Florida, New Jersey also lacks such jurisdiction under UIFSA. That is because Section 611 of UIFSA has an 'anti-hometown' rule which requires the obligee [the mother] to go to the obligor's [the father] state for modification. Therefore, the New Jersey divorce judge ruled correctly concluded that the mother must register and seek modification of the order in the father's home state of Texas.
Page v. Till, New Jersey App. Div., August 22, 2008
 The New Jersey divorce judge ordered the mother to pay 18 % of the Special Education needs for one of the parties' children. However, she failed or refused to provide her business tax returns, forcing the court to impute income to her. Therefore, the decision is affirmed.
Decker v. Decker, New Jersey App. Div., August 21, 2008
 The ex-husband wanted compensation from the ex-wife for damages she allegedly caused to the former marital home. He also asked for credit on account of payments he made on her loan. However, the New Jersey divorce judge failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual disputes and the case is therefore reversed and remanded.
Pierce v. Pierce, New Jersey App. Div., August 20, 2008
 After their New Jersey divorce, the mother appealed from an order denying her request to compel the father to contribute toward the tuition and costs ($50,000 per year) of the parties' daughter at a private boarding high school. The appellate panel affirmed, finding the New Jersey divorce agreement did not clearly reflect such an obligation and this conclusion is supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence.
Spicer v. Vasquez, New Jersey App. Div., August 19, 2008
 The mother wanted to move from New Jersey to North Carolina with the 3 minor children of the marriage. Her main reason was to live in North Carolina with her fiancé. But the New Jersey divorce judge noted there was no serious refutation to the concept of the fiancé relocating back to New Jersey. That factor and the father's desire to maintain his close and involved relationship with his children led to denial of the relocation application. Pursuant to Baures, relocation would have been "inimical to the child[ren]'s interests."
Ryan v. Ryan, New Jersey App. Div., August 18, 2008
 The New Jersey divorce judgment provided that the ex-husband could file a changed circumstances application to decrease alimony if the ex-wife did not have employment within 3 years. The New Jersey divorce judge imputed income of $35,000 a year to her, the salary of a job that had been offered to her and she refused, and reduced her alimony from $1,400 to $727 per week. The decision is affirmed.
De Berry v. De Berry, New Jersey App. Div., August 15, 2008
|
|
|
