Skip to main content
Eric S Solotoff

Eric Solotoff’s Legal Cases

7 total

  • Moriarty v. Bradt

    Practice Area:
    Family
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2003
    Outcome:
    Seminal case on grandparent visitation in NJ
    Description:
    I prepared the Petition for Certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
  • Wilde v. Wilde 337 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2001)

    Practice Area:
    Family
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2001
    Outcome:
    Grandparent Visitation
    Description:
    First reported decision in NJ after US Supreme Court case of Troxel. I wrote the Appellate Brief's in the Wilde matter.
  • Crews v. Crews, 164 N.J. 11 (2000)

    Practice Area:
    Family
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2000
    Outcome:
    Standard of living as it relates to alimony
    Description:
    I wrote the Appellate briefs in this matter.
  • Brawer v. Brawer, 329 N.J. Super. 273 (App. Div. 2000)

    Practice Area:
    Family
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2000
    Outcome:
    Enforceability of oral settlement agreement
    Description:
    I second chaired the divorce trial and wrote the Appellate Briefs in this matter.
  • Eaton v. Grau, 368 N.J. Super. 215 (App. Div. 2004)

    Practice Area:
    Family
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2004
    Outcome:
    Hold harmless provision in PSA
    Description:
    I wrote the Appelale Brief in this matter. The Appellate Divison held taht "hold harmless" provision in parties' property settlement agreement did not require ex-husband to remove ex-wife's name from the mortgage.
  • Parish v. Parish

    Practice Area:
    Family
    Date:
    Feb 03, 2010
    Outcome:
    recedent regarding restricting access to court
    Description:
    We represented the plaintiff for his divorce, and in this case, post-judgment litigation. On his behalf, we filed a motion seeking enforcement of the parties' divorce agreement because the ex-wife interfered with his parenting time with the children and to fix a parenting schedule for the several months. The schedule was supposed to be arrived at with the assistance of a parenting coordinator but the issuance of a domestic violence temporary restraining order against Plaitniff's ex-wife delayed that process. After the restraining order was dismissed, the parties went to the parent coordinator who made recommendations prior to the return date of the motion. Plaintiff agreed with them - he ex-wife would not state if she agreed or not, waiting to see what the court would do. The trial court denied Plaintiff's motion as moot, ordered the parties back to the parent coordinator to deal with the issues in the motion and required that the parties attend settlement conferences before filing any future motions, even enforcement motions. We appealed arguing that (1) the trial court unconstitutionally impaired plaintiff's access to the Court and (2) the court improperly abdicated its responsibility to a parent coordinator who cannot, by Supreme Court directive, address enforcement issues in any event. The Appellate Division agreed in a 2-1 decision. In doing so, they crafted new requirements before a family part litigant's access to the Court can be restricted. The court also reaffirmed that parent coordinators cannot address enforcement issues and courts cannot adbidicate decision making to parent coordinators.
  • Parish v. Parish

    Practice Area:
    Family
    Date:
    Feb 03, 2010
    Outcome:
    Reversed trial court decision
    Description:
    New reported decision reversing trial court's order requiring parties to have settlement confernces before filing motion. The Court also reiterated that enforcement and modification of custody/parenting time issues cannot be abdicated to a parent coordinator and that judges must decide motions properly presented to the Court.