Justia Lawyer Rating
American Academy of Marimonial Lawyer
Martindale-Hubbell - Preeminent
Martindale-Hubbell - Distinguished
Super Lawyers
New Jersey Supreme Court Certified Attorney
For additional information regarding the criterion for inclusion or membership for lawyer associations, awards, & certifications click image for link.

|

Valentines Day. A day that couples celebrate their love. Sending flowers with a card to one’s significant other is a common way of expressing that love. And to not be disappointed, people are encouraged to order their flowers as soon as possible to assure delivery by Valentine’s Day. One does so. But after the order is placed, the lovers become fighters and someone obtains a Domestic Violence Restraining Order against the other. In the meantime, the flower and card get delivered and the sender gets arrested and charged with criminal contempt. Was this a crime? That was the situation presented in the case of State v. J.T., 470 N.J. Super 106(Ch. Div. 2020) which was recently approved for publication.

In this case, the defendant had been charged with a contempt of a domestic violence TRO. The issues addressed by the Court was whether the defendant could be found to have “purposely or knowingly” violated the TRO by having initiated communication to a protected party prior to the entry and service if the TRO, and secondarily, whether a defendant was subject to a TRO has an affirmative obligation to attempt to recall or withdraw such communication. The Court found the answer to both questions to be negative and accordingly, dismissed the Contempt Complaint against the defendant.

In this matter, the parties had been in a dating relationship. The plaintiff had obtained a TRO against the defendant on January 31, 2020, which the defendant acknowledged had been served upon him on that date. However, one (1) week prior to the entry of the TRO, the defendant had ordered a floral arrangement for the plaintiff which was scheduled to be delivered to the plaintiff along with a card the day before Valentine’s Day, February 13, 2020. Although he had been served with a TRO which prohibited him from having any contact or communication with the plaintiff, the defendant did not stop, or take any action to stop, the floral delivery from occurring, nor did he inquire as to whether such delivery could be stopped. The flowers and card were in fact delivered to the plaintiff on February 13th resulting in the contempt charges being brought against the defendant.

Continue reading ›

|

Palimony Agreements. As our societal norms changed, it became more common place for couples to live together without the benefit of marriage. However, in most jurisdictions, New Jersey included, the laws and statutes favored marriage. Hence, when a relationship ended, the law only recognized the financial rights and obligations-i.e. spousal support or division of property-arising out of a marriage or other legally recognized relationship ( i.e. civil union, domestic partnership). These laws did not apply to “living together” relationships or their breakup, even if the couple had been together for many years. A financially dependent party could be jettisoned to fend for themselves without any recourse. Then came the case of the actor Lee Marvin and his longtime girlfriend. She sued him, claiming he had promised to support her for the rest of her life. The Court recognized that such promises could create an enforceable contract or agreement for which compensatory “damages” could be awarded. Since spousal support or alimony was only statutorily allowed upon divorce, the term “Palimony” was born to describe such damages. Following Kozlowski v. Kozlowski, N.J. 378 (1979), New Jersey recognized the enforceability of such

“ Palimony Agreements” arising out of such marital-type relationships. However, rarely were such “promises” reduced to writing. They were generally premised on statements orally made, or expressed or implied from the actions of the parties.

Perhaps concerned that the Courts had gone too far in enforcing such “Palimony Agreements”, the New Jersey Legislature in 2010 chose to amend the Statute of Frauds, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), so as to require that any such contract must be in writing and signed by the person making the promise. However, the amendment went on to provide that “ no such written promise is binding unless it was made with the independent advice of counsel for both parties”.

Continue reading ›

|

For most people going through a divorce, their interests in real estate are often the primary assets that need to be divided. Whether it is the marital home, a vacation property, or commercial real estate, most litigants question how they are addressed in a divorce. Like all other assets acquired during the marriage, the law requires that they first be identified and then valued, after which the court (or the parties by Agreement) can effectuate their “ equitable distribution”. However, dealing with real estate in divorce has become more challenging given the ever-changing market. This blog post will attempt to briefly address some of these issues.pexels-karolina-grabowska-4506270-300x200

The first task is to identify those real estate holdings that may be subject to equitable distribution. To be subject to equitable distribution, they usually need to have been acquired “ during the marriage”, which is generally defined as between the date of marriage and the date the divorce complaint is filed. However, as with most things in divorce, there are some exceptions. Real Estate acquired “in contemplation of marriage”, often the marital home, may be considered subject to equitable distribution even though purchased prior to the date of marriage, if certain elements are established ( a topic for another blog post perhaps). Furthermore, sometimes real estate may change in value, not due solely to market forces, but through the “active” efforts of the owner or financial contributions towards improvements. If those “active” efforts or contributions occurred during the marriage, even if the property itself was originally acquired prior to the marriage, any change in value attributable to same may be considered a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.

Once marital real estate assets have been identified, they need to be valued. Often the parties may decide that they want to simply sell the real estate and divide any “net proceeds” in some fashion. In this case, the property may not need to be valued as the market itself will establish its “value” when it is sold. However, in other instances, real estate may not get sold either because one or both parties want to retain it (i.e. the marital home) or it may not be amenable to be sold ( i.e. commercial property housing a business). In these instances, its value will need to be established by way of appraisal done by a professional real estate appraiser. Sometimes to save the cost of an appraisal, the parties may go to a local realtor for a CMA or Comparative Market Analysis. This is not the same thing as an appraisal but is usually just an estimate based upon recent listings or sales in the area to support a possible listing price. Hence, courts generally do not accept CMA’s as proof of value. That is not to say that parties may also attempt to“stipulate” or agree as to a property’s value, but in today’s market that can be a challenging task. And frequently parties have different motivations concerning the disposition of the property which may lead them to either want to minimize or maximize its value in a case. While parties may also secure competing appraisals, discrepancies are usually small and generally reconciled between the appraisers or during discovery or at trial.

Continue reading ›

|

Attached is the Decision in Temple v. Temple.  I previously wrote about the importance of this decision in which this office created a new and easier standard for a payor of alimony to prove a claim of cohabitation.  Although not originally published many prominent attorneys, as well as the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, wrote to the Committee on publications asking that the case be published.  If you have a cohabitation case we would be happy to review it and discuss your rights.  Since in this area as in many issues involving Family Law, “We made the Law.”

REGULAR OPINION (OPN-REVERSED IN PT REMANDED IN PART)

|

Let’s talk about polarization, which can now be considered a commonly used catchphrase. We see the destructive effects of it everywhere in our culture. Conservatives against liberals, Democrats versus Republicans, Pro-choice versus Pro-life. The list is endless but the rhetoric is similar, “we are right they are wrong,” “we have God and free will, and with that comes the right of humanity, which is on our side, and those who do not agree are just plain evil.” No one recognizes merit in the other’s thoughts, words, ideology, or position we have become quick to jump to the conclusion if you don’t see it my way you are in the wrong.pexels-snapwire-38870-300x199

The attitude and conclusions mentioned above can be seen on an amplified platform through news channels, specifically through Fox vs CNN, which is only contributing to the slow but steady pulling our Nation apart. This concept that there is only one right view or approach to a problem or a way of life is not just political it has seeped into our culture. From movies to video games, sports to ballroom dancing we pit groups against each other take sides and cheer for our team. Unfortunately in marriage, this idea of right or wrong, my way or the highway is poisonous. Unlike in politics or a Rambo movie, marriages only work if there is compromise. I am frequently asked at events what is the biggest cause of divorce to which I respond marriage and move on. No one really wants a dissertation on the problems of our society with their martini.

Looking back over the decades of divorces numbering in the tens of thousands I would say the primary reason people get divorced is a lack of communication. That same rigid preconception that I am right and you are wrong that infects our public discourse often infects the more intimate discussion between spouses. The idea that there is one right way and that way is mine may work in the Senate ( not really ) but it does not work in the bedroom or for that matter in the kitchen. Marriages that work have open communication a sharing of ideas and goals and the flexibility to see the other side and make room in your brain and your heart to consider the alternative.

Continue reading ›

|

In a previous blog, I promised that the Appellant Division was going to revisit the proof required to be presented before one could obtain discovery of a dependent former spouse’s social and financial circumstances; as of today June 17th, 2021, the case has been decided although not yet approved for publication.

Temple v. Temple ( A-0293-20) is an important decision for anyone seeking to terminate their alimony obligations based on their former spouse’s cohabitation. In Landau v. Landau, the appellant court indicated that before one was entitled to discovery or a hearing, regarding issues of cohabitation the proponent of this change in circumstance needed to prove evidence of said change. The problem with Landau was that it did not address what proofs were needed in order to meet the requirement and move forward with the discovery phase.

The Trial Judge on Temple found that to be successful on an application one needed to prove all six factors set forth in the statute as things to evaluate when determining if a prima facia case was established. The Appellant Court accepted our argument that one needed not to prove all six statutory factors to establish a prima facia case but must only establish sufficient evidence so that the trier of fact may conclude that the parties have “ undertaken duties and privileges that are commonly associated with marriage or civil unions.”

Continue reading ›

|

On June 8th, I argued a case of significant importance in the Appellant Division. Although I have not received a decision as of yet, I am still of the belief I was heard. The case involved an application from the supporting spouse to terminate alimony based on the cohabitation of his former spouse. Although I did not represent my client at the trial level I believe that my predecessor made the necessary arguments allowing me to present the important issues to the higher court. The Trial Judge had misread the recently decided, Landau decision, believing that the fact in Landau created a litmus test as to what constituted a Prima Facia case allowing discovery and a plenary hearing as to the issue of cohabitation. In fact, Landau provides that before one is entitled to discovery and a plenary hearing one must establish a prima facia case.

A prima facia case is one where the court is to consider the issues presented by the proponent of a proposition in the light most favorable to said, petitioner. In considering the assertions of the petitioner the defenses offered by the opposition are not to be given weight. Since the opposition is not required to give evidence, their election to give selected evidence is should not be considered as the issue is not ultimately a success on the merits but rather the sufficiency of the assertion to justify a full examination of the issue.  

The idea of a prima facia case as an entry ticket is based on the privacy right of the dependent spouse who ought not to be forced to divulge intimate details absent the presentation of more than innuendo. In my case, there was significant proof including a private investigator’s report, statements by the paramour of the closeness of the relationship, and some economic proof. The initial problem was that the Trial Court had misread the law, this error of the law was compounded by the trial courts weighing the defenses of the dependent’s former spouse and finding her explanations more credible. 

Continue reading ›

|

In the midst of the continuing global Covid pandemic, escalating tensions in the Middle East, the humanitarian crisis at our southern border, rising gasoline prices and hacking of pipelines, among other events, there was one news report which trumped them all: Bill and Melinda Gates were getting a divorce! Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, and his wife, Melinda, have been married for 27 years and have three children. They have an estimated net worth of approximately $124 billion, making them amongst the wealthiest people in the world. In announcing their divorce, they simply indicated “We no longer believe we can grow together as a couple in the next phase of our lives”. The Gates’ divorce comes on the heels of the recent divorce of another of the world’s wealthiest couples, namely Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, and his wife Mackenzie. The Bezos’ divorce in 2019 after 25 years of marriage and four children resulted in Mackenzie receiving an estimated $37 billion settlement, largely made up of Amazon stock, out of a total net worth estimated to be $137 billion. It is noteworthy that the Gates’ did not enter into a prenuptial agreement at the time that they married in 1994 at which time Bill Gates was already believed to be the richest person in the United States. To the extent to which the Gates’ will follow the lead of the Bezos’ and reach an amicable, quick, yet lucrative, divorce settlement is to be determined. However, what these divorces demonstrate is that despite having all of the wealth in the world, as the Beatles so prophetically sang “Money Can’t Buy Me Love”.

Since its inception, the law offices of James P. Yudes have handled countless divorce cases involving high net worth couples. These types of cases often present unique issues and challenges which our over four decades of experience enable us to address. Sometimes, resolving these types of cases can be relatively simple and straightforward. The assets of the parties may be readily identifiable. Determining their value may be as easy as looking at a bank or investment statement or obtaining appraisals. In certain instances, just like Bezos and Gates who own publicly traded companies, their value is a function of the market price of the stock. It can then just be a matter of how best to divide this marital estate fairly and equitably, while enabling the parties, whether from utilizing those assets or other income streams, to enjoy a lifestyle reasonably comparable to that of the marriage. While the marriage may not have worked out, the hope is that in these sorts of scenarios, just as with the Bezos’ and Gates’, both parties will be able to move on with their lives, and share in the success that they had accrued during the course of their marriage.

Unfortunately, not all high-net-worth divorces proceed so amicably. In many instances, there are businesses involved. However, most of the time these businesses are privately owned, and not publicly traded. Usually, it is one spouse who owns and/or runs the business. If the reasons for the parties splitting up is not very “amicable”, the level of anger, if not hatred, between the parties fuels a level of mistrust, leading to disputes as to what may be going on with that business’ “value”, and the income generated therefrom. As a result, these matters can result in a hotly contested litigation, involving extensive discovery, competing financial experts, and the possibility of a trial to have the issues be decided by the court. Even in situations where there is not a level of animosity between the parties themselves, honest differences of opinion as to the value of businesses or other marital assets, the level of income, or the nature of the marital lifestyle may still exist requiring discovery, expert assistance, and financial expertise to resolve those issues. Yet the ultimate goal remains the same, and whether achieved by way of a mutual settlement or by a determination of the Court, that there is a fair and equitable division of the marital estate and an ability on the part of both parties to move forward with their post-divorce lives. Indeed, that is this firm’s goal in every divorce case we handle, and not just high net worth cases.

Continue reading ›

|

Consistent with our firm’s position of being a leader in the field of Family Law, we have just received a decision on one of our appeals, meaning it is now law that will be binding for trial courts. The case is, Steele V Steele, and it was approved for publication today as I write this on, April 30, 2021.

This case analyzed the types of contracts that engaged and married couples can enter into. It makes clear that contrary to unreported decisions that premarital agreements are creatures of statute and that judges are bound by the statutory scheme and can not vary it. In the Steele case, the trial judge erroneously found that an agreement entered into after the marriage was a prenuptial agreement under the act because the husband had expressed an intent to have such an agreement.

The case then goes on to discuss when and if a marital agreement can become enforceable. Recognizing that divorcing adults are susceptible to entering into agreements that are enforceable because they are adverse to each other. It should also be stated that those with marital trouble on the potential path to divorce can contract so long as the agreement is fair at the time it was entered into and at the time enforcement is sought. In Steele, the wife had just conceived a child and was breastfeeding when she entered into the agreement. Unbeknownst to her, the husband had been preparing an agreement even before the parties were married changing the way he valued assets; ignoring some assets and sources of income altogether. The court indicated that for the post-marital agreement to be enforceable the agreement needed to be fair and equitable. Meaning that the dominant partner needed to make a full and complete disclosure of all assets and income without exception. In the Steele matter the husband who admitted to being worth at least 9 million dollars at the time of the agreement, did not decide to play fair and disclose all assets and used inconsistent means to value assets choosing in each instance the valuation technique that yielded the lowest monetary value. In this matter, the husband did not disclose all sources of income and ignored significant income-producing assets held in trusts. Another condition of enforcing such agreements is that they must be fair and equitable when the agreement is reached as well as when enforcement is sought. In this matter, a home selected and purchased after the parties’ marriage was excluded from property to be shared upon divorce and in the event of the husband’s death, his wife and young child would be left destitute as in the document the wife had waived any claim against the husbands’ estate. The overreaching of the husband is well documented in this exquisitely crafted appellant decision.

Continue reading ›

|

pexels-august-de-richelieu-4427541-200x300This happens with regularity. A new and sometimes even an existing client will tell me about a divorce case involving a friend, relative, or acquaintance that had issues “similar” to theirs’s, and that the judge, in that case, had decided those issues this way or that. They expressed a belief that how the judge decided those issues “must be the law”, and therefore, they would expect to have a similar result in their case. Why I certainly thank them for the information, they are then surprised and disappointed when I tell them that every divorce case is different and that how one judge may have decided the issues is not necessarily determinative on what will or shall happen in their case, and/or that the decisions of a judge in a different case are in no way binding upon the judge handling their case. The other judge’s decision may be the “law” in their friend, relative, or acquaintance’s case, but is not necessarily the law in theirs.

Before discussing the “legal” reasons for this, there are some very practical reasons why it is unwise to compare what may have happened in one divorce case with any other. The first reason is very simple. Just like no two people are exactly the same, neither are any two marriages nor the issues arising from the dissolution thereof. A primary breadwinner may “earn” the same amount of money, but one is a W-2 employee with a long-standing steady job and the other a small business owner whose income is based on many variables and creates a whole different set of considerations. The parties may be married for the same number of years but in one both parties have been gainfully employed, while in the other a party may have given up or deferred a career to raise children. In another, the parties may each have had two children, but in one the children are relatively healthy and doing well academically, but in the other, a child may have special needs or behavioral or educational deficits. The parties may have enjoyed the same family income, but one lived frugally and the other beyond their means. You get the point. As much as one may see similarities, no two marriages are alike. No two life stories are the same.

When a divorce case comes before a judge, there are certain legal authorities that the judge is to apply in deciding the issues in that case. There are statutes which have been enacted by the Legislature. There are Court Rules which have been promulgated by our Supreme Court. There are published decisions, which have been rendered by the courts in which they have interpreted, implemented, and/or applied those statutes and rules to a given case. A judge applies that legal authority to what it finds to be the facts and evidence in the case and renders a decision. However, since the facts and evidence are never exactly the same and vary from case to case, the resulting decision, even applying the exact same law, will vary as well. That, plus the fact that much of the law governing divorce matters is not based upon any sort of simple “formula”, but upon a multitude of factors a court is to consider, and which afford the court with a great level of discretion in determining. This ability to exercise discretion necessarily leads to different results depending not only upon the facts and circumstances of the case, but the weight of the evidence, the credibility of the testimony, and the “feel” of the case itself, so the judge can make a decision which is fair and equitable.

Continue reading ›