Used by millions of people, Facebook is typically used to connect friends and family. However, in another example of how technology and the law intersect, Facebook can now be uses to connect you with your legal adversaries! This development is explained in the article in the NJ Law Journal that can be found utilizing the following link: http://www.njlawjournal.com/home/id=1202785980985#
As technology advances, so must the concepts of what acts may constitute domestic violence. As the case summarized below indicates, the surreptitious use of video cameras, tracking devices, and similar devices may qualify as an act of domestic violence. This can be true even if the victim finds out about the surveillance after the fact.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE : COVERT SURVEILLANCE
The judge found the very placement of hidden surveillance equipment was designed to check plaintiff’s movements and created a climate of fear and anxiety for plaintiff, which constituted harassment. Further, the judge rejected defendant’s testimony as not credible. Defendant’s assertion he used cameras to monitor their mother’s physical health could not justify the secret placement of units in and around his sister’s living space or the number of units installed.
Dealing with a divorce can be difficult and it is understandable that individuals may feel overwhelmed. This feeling of being overwhelmed results in some people choosing to ignore the process. Whether this is done due to feelings of denial, frustration, or simply being unable to cope, ignoring the proceedings can have significant negative consequences.
If you fail to respond to the Complaint for Divorce within 35 days of being served, the other party can have you held in default. Simply put, this means that provided the plaintiff follows all the procedural requirements he or she can divorced on their proposed terms without your input or objection.
The following case summary explains the realities of defaulting in your divorce:
FAMILY LAW
20-2-2783 Mora v. MoraFAMILY LAW
20-2-2783 Mora v. Mora, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) Respondent-husband filed a divorce complaint to which appellant-wife failed to answer. Respondent filed a notice of proposed final judgment which included an itemization of the parties’ assets and included a proposed trial date. The trial court conducted a hearing and entered a final judgment of divorce at its conclusion. Appellant was present at the hearing. Appellant subsequently moved to vacate the FJOD allegedly claiming that respondent’s attorney had a conflict of interest, she had not been served with the divorce complaint, and was unaware of the pending divorce. The trial court determined there was no conflict of interest or showing of excusable neglect in failing to answer the complaint or otherwise participate in the litigation and affirmed the FJOD. On appeal, the court affirmed holding the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The court noted the grounds which appellant asserted to support her motion were unsupported by, and in some instances contrary, to the facts. Additionally, the trial court gave appellant the opportunity to participate in the proof hearing by questioning respondent, but appellant declined to do so. Finally, the court held appellant had not demonstrated the trial court’s decision was inherently unfair or contrary to applicable legal principles., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) Respondent-husband filed a divorce complaint to which appellant-wife failed to answer. Respondent filed a notice of proposed final judgment which included an itemization of the parties’ assets and included a proposed trial date. The trial court conducted a hearing and entered a final judgment of divorce at its conclusion. Appellant was present at the hearing. Appellant subsequently moved to vacate the FJOD allegedly claiming that respondent’s attorney had a conflict of interest, she had not been served with the divorce complaint, and was unaware of the pending divorce. The trial court determined there was no conflict of interest or showing of excusable neglect in failing to answer the complaint or otherwise participate in the litigation and affirmed the FJOD. On appeal, the court affirmed holding the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The court noted the grounds which appellant asserted to support her motion were unsupported by, and in some instances contrary, to the facts. Additionally, the trial court gave appellant the opportunity to participate in the proof hearing by questioning respondent, but appellant declined to do so. Finally, the court held appellant had not demonstrated the trial court’s decision was inherently unfair or contrary to applicable legal principles.
Hiring an attorney is one method in which you can minimize the chances you will be held in default. There may also be remedial measures that can be taken if default has already been entered.
Anyone who has watched Wheel of Fortune knows that the long running show places a monetary value on letters of the alphabet. Ever wonder how much certain punctuation marks would cost. How about $10,000,000.00 for a comma! In this article http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/lack-of-oxford-comma-costs-maine-company-millions-in-overtime-dispute/ar-BBycPZW?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp the court ruled in favor of employees and against their employer due to a missing comma. That comma cost the employer $10,000,000.00.
Clearly, this is not a divorce or family law case. So why did I create this post? As an explanation to my clients. I know you often wonder why I spend so much time reviewing, revising, and proofreading documents for your case before having you sign them. This article shows why.
There is a cost to doing things the right way. The linked article shows the costs of not making sure things are done right the first time.
We fight so you don’t have to
