Freehold, NJ
Divorce and separation Lawyer at Freehold, NJ
Practice Areas: Divorce & Separation, Domestic Violence ... +7 more
OUTCOME: Appellate Court vacated the trial court's order that denied the recusal motion and remanded the case for further fact-finding.
The issue was whether the trial judge should have recused himself from the case after his law clerk engaged in employment discussions with, and accepted an offer of employment from the defendant's atto ... rney during the litigation, and where the law clerk was related to the trial judge.
OUTCOME: I was successful in having the Appellate Court uphold the settlement.
My client's ex-wife sought to vacate the terms of the Property Settlement Agreement that were entered after the trial had started and both parties had already testified. She was represented by counse ... l during the negotiation of the settlement and when it was put on the record in Court before the trial judge. I had to file a motion on behalf of my client, which was granted, to have the terms of the settlement incorporated into the Judgment of Divorce because the ex-wife would not consent to it.
OUTCOME: The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the matter, as they agreed there was no changed circumstances.
Only a few months after the judgment of divorce was entered we sought to enforce its terms due to the ex-husband's failure to comply with the terms of the Property Settlement Agreement. The PSA was en ... tered while the ex-husband was unemployed and contained language that acknowledged that despite that fact he was still entering into the agreement. The trial court refused to enforce specific terms of the PSA and modified certain terms due to defendant's unemployment. I appealed and argued that there was no changed circumstances that warranted the court granting the ex-husband a modification of the terms of the PSA entered only a few months earlier.
OUTCOME: I was successful in the appeal. The trial court's decision was reversed and the matter remanded back to the trial court.
The parties were divorced in 1998. I represented the ex-husband on a post-judgment basis. In 2004 primary custody of both children were transferred to my client and the ex-wife was required to pay ch ... ild support to him. In 2008 the parties' son began residing with the ex-wife once again and as a result she filed a motion to obtain child support from my client. Initially, the trial judge decided to grant the ex-wife child support in an amount equal to 50% of my client's child support as per the PSA entered in 1998. The ex-wife then filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. In deciding the motion for reconsideration the trial judge increased my client's child support obligation that was in the 1998 PSA by the percentage increase in his income from 1998 to 2010. I filed an appeal of that decision on the basis that the trial judge's simple mathematical calculation to determine child support was contrary to the law that required him to consider all statutory factors and the child support guidelines.
OUTCOME: The Appellate Division upheld the trial court's decision that ex-husband had not shown changed circumstances, but did hold that he was entitled to an ability to pay hearing before he was arrested for not paying the arrears.
Ex-husband filed a post-judgment motion to modify his alimony and child support obligations to my client pursuant to the terms of the PSA. I filed a motion to enforce the terms of the PSA and to issue ... a warrant for the ex-husband's arrest for failure to pay his support arrears. The trial court denied the ex-husband's motion to modify his support based on a failure to show a prima facie case of changed circumstances, and granted my request to issue a bench warrant for arrest. The ex-husband filed an appeal of the trial court's order and claimed that he had shown changed circumstances and therefore was entitled to relief.
OUTCOME: I was successful in winning the appeal and upholding the trial judge's decision for the mother to share equally in the transportation of the child for the father's parenting time.
The adversary appealed the trial judge's decision to require her client, who was the mother of the child, to share equally in the transportation responsibilities for my client's parenting time after th ... e mother moved a little more than 50 miles away from my client. A prior consent order provided that if either party moved from their residence and increased the distance between the parties to more than 50 miles that shall be considered a change of circumstances for the parties to agree to a new location for the transfer of the child; and, if the parties were unable to agree the court would decide. The mother argued in the appeal that the trial judge abused his discretion in modifying the transportation responsibilities to require her to share equally in it.
OUTCOME: I was successful on the appeal, as the Appellate Division reversed the trial court order and remanded the matter for a plenary hearing on the issue of counsel and expert fees.
The parties engaged in protracted post-judgment litigation to determine the ex-husband's child support obligation as a result of the termination of his alimony obligation after his ex-wife's remarriage ... . The parties resolved the adjusted child support amount by agreement, but agreed to submit to the court the issue of their mutual requests for counsel and expert fees generated during the litigation. Based solely on the motions with conflicting certification filed by each party the trial court granted the ex-wife a substantial award towards her counsel and expert fees. I was retained to represent the ex-husband for the appeal of the trial court's order.
OUTCOME: The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision because RC has not established extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling of the statute of repose.
RC, who at the time was 51 years old, filed a complaint under the New Jersey Parentage Act to compel LL to submit to a paternity test. I represented LL and in response to the complaint we filed a moti ... on for summary judgment to dismissed the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by NJSA 9:17-45b. The trial court agreed with our motion and dismissed RC's complaint. RC then filed an appeal of the trial court's decision.
OUTCOME: The Appellate Division reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to award permanent alimony.
After a full trial the judge determined my client (the wife) was entitled to rehabilitative alimony after a relatively short marriage of approximately 7 years even though I had sought permanent alimony ... because she was suffering from cancer.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
