Attorney Karen K Saminski's Legal Cases

Appeals

Blancas v. Blancas (N.J. Super., 2012)

N/A

OUTCOME: We succeeded in lowering the amount of income imputed to our client for purposes of child support.

We succeeded in lowering the amount of income imputed to our client for purposes of child support. The trial court imputed $136,791.00 in annual income to the plaintiff, due to his previous employment ... as an attorney in Mexico and his recent legal education in the United States. The Court chose this income based upon the testimony of defendant’s expert. We were able to demonstrate that the imputation of income was not equitable because it was comparable with the salary of an attorney in the New York City metropolitan area, and that our client had never practiced law in the United States, nor was he licensed to do so. Due to the success of this appeal, the amount of our client’s child support payment was re-evaluated. Our firm did not represent the plaintiff at the trial level.

Appeals

Falkowski v. Falkowski (N.J. Super., 2011)

N/A

OUTCOME: The Court found that our client was entitled to a greater share of the property (in excess of 50%) due to his sacrifice and hard-work, which the judge referred to as “sweat equity.”

Representing the plaintiff, our firm succeeded in arguing for unequal distribution of equity in our client’s favor due to his personal labor in renovating both the marital home and the vacation home. W ... e argued, and the court agreed, that our client was entitled to a greater share of the property (in excess of 50%) due to his sacrifice and hard-work, which the judge referred to as “sweat equity.” We represented the plaintiff at trial and defended the appeal.

Appeals

Levine v. Levine (Unpublished, 2007)

N/A

OUTCOME: Representing the defendant mother, we successfully defended the plaintiff’s appeal.

Plaintiff argued that the trial court improperly added back certain tax deductions when calculating his gross income for purposes of determining child support. We were successful in showing that the ac ... celerated method of depreciation used by the plaintiff for calculating his depreciation expenses was excluded by the child support guidelines. In addition, we were also able to show that deductions for home office expenses are excluded by the guidelines. We were able to show that a disbursement from a retirement account is properly counted as income. Lastly, we were successful in arguing that the guidelines provide for the inclusion of interest income from investments in calculating gross income for child support. By combating claims made by the plaintiff, we were able to protect our client’s child support award for her children at the Appellate level. We represented the defendant both at trial and defended the appeal.

Appeals

Drakeford v. Rivers (N.J. Super., 2010)

N/A

OUTCOME: Representing the children’s mother, we were successful in arguing that the court should conduct a full and complete hearing before awarding custody.

As a result of documents signed by the client before she retained us, the trial court awarded custody of the children to the plaintiff without a plenary hearing. Representing the children’s mother, we ... were successful in arguing that the court should conduct a full and complete hearing before awarding custody. This successful appeal was crucial in order for our client to achieve a fair hearing. We represented the client in trial court and brought the appeal.

Appeals

Kiely v. Kiely, No. A-0738-12T4, 2013 N.J.Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2784 (App. Div. Nov. 19., 2013)

N/A

OUTCOME: Representing the Father on appeal we were successful in having that portion of the Motion Judge's Order finding his daughter "unemancipated" reversed.

We argued, among other things, that the Judge erred in not finding the daughter emancipated due to her failure to enroll in any school as well as her inconsistent attendance at school. The Appellate Di ... vision found that the evidence presented by the daughter was insufficient to support the Motion Judge's decision. Completing some evening classes during a single semester in three years and an expressed intent to register for courses in the future does not defeat a Motion for Emancipation. Now our client will not be obligated to provide support without a sufficient showing of proof.

Karen K Saminski's Legal Cases (5)

Blancas v. Blancas (N.J. Super., 2012)

Falkowski v. Falkowski (N.J. Super., 2011)

Levine v. Levine (Unpublished, 2007)

Drakeford v. Rivers (N.J. Super., 2010)

Kiely v. Kiely, No. A-0738-12T4, 2013 N.J.Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2784 (App. Div. Nov. 19., 2013)