Court strives to bring clarity to NJ alimony law

Posted on August 15, 2013 by Sandy Durst

NJ has 4 types of alimony: permanent, limited duration, rehabilitative, and reimbursement.  The body of case law and the NJ alimony statute have served litigants, attorneys and judges well in crafting equitable resolutions to alimony disputes.  However, there are some gray areas in the law.  One of those gray areas concerns how long a marriage must be in order to be considered “long term”.  This is an important threshold because permanent alimony is appropriate in a long term marriage. A short term marriage is a candidate for limited duration alimony.  In the case referenced below, the Appellate Division has held that a 15 year marriage cannot be considered a short term marriage.

 

FAMILY LAW 20-2-0941 Gnall v. Gnall, App. Div. (Lihotz, J.A.D.) (48 pp.) Reviewing plaintiff’s challenge to a limited-duration alimony award, we reversed, declaring a 15-year marriage does not qualify as short-term, precluding an award of limited-duration alimony.

Posted in Durst Firm News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Court strives to bring clarity to NJ alimony law

NJ Supreme Court gives both parents an equal voice in deciding last name of the child

Posted on August 13, 2013 by Sandy Durst

In a recent NJ Supreme Court decision, the rights of the non-custodial parent were placed on equal footing with those of the parent of primary custody when it comes to establishing the surname of the child.  This is an important development in the law for the non-custodial parent.

 

Parents Stand on Equal Footing in Child Name-Change Applications
Pulling back on a nearly two-decade-old doctrine, New Jersey’s highest court held Monday that where parents agreed on a child’s surname at the time of birth, there is no presumption in favor of the custodial parent if the name is later sought to be changed. The unanimous court, in Emma v. Evans, A-112-11, applied a different analysis than in Gubernat v. Deremer, 140 N.J. 120 (1995), where it found a presumption in favor of the primary custodial parent involving the initial naming of a child born out of wedlock.

Posted in Durst Firm News | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on NJ Supreme Court gives both parents an equal voice in deciding last name of the child

Actual income & potential income relevant to support analysis

Posted on July 11, 2013 by Sandy Durst

In a recently decided case, the appellate court affirmed the long held principle that when it comes to analyzing a parties income for determining support obligations, the actual income must be considered as well as the earning potential or earning capacity of the individual.  Regardless of what side of this argument you may find yourself, The Durst Firm has the experience necessary to present persuasive arguments to the court.

FAMILY LAW
20-2-0594 Bell v. Bell, App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) Plaintiff appeals from various aspects of postjudgment orders of the Family Part. The panel concludes that the court correctly excluded defendant’s Temporary Assistance to Needy Families benefits from his gross income under the child-support guidelines but in suspending his payment obligation completely because of his TANF eligibility, the court overlooked the possibility that the ability to earn additional income may be imputed to a parent who is the recipient of TANF or other means-tested government benefits. Because the judge did not make the necessary findings regarding defendant’s ability to earn additional income, the panel remands for a retrospective assessment of whether any income should have been imputed to him during the period he was receiving TANF benefits. As to the remaining issues, which fundamentally pertain to custody and visitation, because the panel finds that the matrimonial settlement agreement, which plaintiff seeks to enforce, and the psychologist’s expert recommendations have become stale with the passage of time, it remands for reconsideration by the Family Part, in anticipation that the court arrange, if it is financially feasible, for an updated expert evaluation of the child.

Posted in Durst Firm News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Actual income & potential income relevant to support analysis

Domestic Violence and the loss of firearms license

Posted on June 27, 2013 by Sandy Durst

Domestic violence is a serious issue and the State of New Jersey takes the ongoing safety of the victim seriously. The presence of firearms in a volatile relationship only serve to increase the risk of serious harm or even death.  Even if the abuser has a valid firearms permit and the guns were legally obtained, a finding of domestic violence can allow for the seizure of all weapons (even if not used in the underlying act of domestic violence) and forfeiture of the abuser’s firearms licenses and purchasing permit.  The case described below details some of the relevant considerations the court will consider when facing a request by the State to seize weapons / licenses.

 

FAMILY LAW 20-2-0433 In the Matter of the Seizure of Weapons Belonging to D.P.P., App. Div. (per curiam) (12 pp.) Defendant D.P.P. appeals from an order entered by the Family Part, granting the State’s motion to forfeit his seized weapons and to revoke his firearms permits and licenses, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21(d)(3). He contends that the trial judge erred in permitting the State to retain an expert witness after the trial had commenced, and that the trial judge’s factual findings were against the weight of the evidence. The appellate panel disagrees and affirms substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Firko. Based on defendant’s mental illness and his history of violence and threats of violence toward his co-workers and his ex-wife, the judge concluded that the State carried its burden of proving that allowing defendant to have firearms would pose a danger to the public health, safety or welfare. It was not an abuse of the judge’s discretion to allow the State to present testimony from its expert. The defense had time to prepare a response to the defense expert’s testimony and was permitted to re-call its own expert after he testified. As a sanction, the judge ordered the State to pay defendant’s expert’s fee.

Posted in Durst Firm News | Tagged , | Comments Off on Domestic Violence and the loss of firearms license

US Supreme Court stikes down DOMA & Prop 8!

Posted on June 26, 2013 by Sandy Durst

In a historic decision earlier today, the US Supreme Court struck down the highly criticized Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) & the controversial California law known as Prop 8.  As a lawyer and a human being I am thankful that our Supreme Court found the collective wisdom to treat all citizens equally regardless of their sexual orientation.  Everyone deserves the right to be in a committed, happy, healthy, and government endorsed relationship.  Marriage is unique in that it is both a civil/legal contract and religious institution.  These lines frequently get blurred and are the cause of much of the emotional rhetoric on this issue.

 

There are many benefits that are granted to married persons including but not limited to tax filing status, inheritance tax benefits, the ability to make health care decisions for their spouse, adoption of children, and the list goes on.  There is no legitimate reason that same sex couples should not enjoy these same government-bestowed rights and privileges.

 

For same sex couples, today’s decisions are historic, long overdue, and the simple recognition that the prior law was wrong and that your relationships have value.  These decisions also present a wide range of new legal options, rights, and responsibilities.  The Durst Firm, LLC is here to assist you in navigating these new possibilities.

Posted in Durst Firm News | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on US Supreme Court stikes down DOMA & Prop 8!