Articles Posted in Relocation

|

We all know about the political civil war which has been taking place in Washington D.C. However, that is a mere skirmish when considering the thermonuclear battle which is about to engulf the Earth – the impending divorce between Kanye West and Kim Kardashian! There is nothing better than a good old fashioned celebrity divorce to take people’s minds off of their mundane troubles of the day. We can see it now. Banners blasting across the internet. Headlines across the covers of People Magazine or the National Enquirer (does it still exist?) Page Six in the New York Post. Whole episodes of TMZ or Access Hollywood. Who should get custody of the children? Is Kim unfit? Is Kanye crackers? Was there a prenup, and if not, how will they divide the millions each are worth? However, there was one recent story about this once loving couple posted on the internet which actually piqued my interest. Apparently, Kim and Kanye live in a mega-mansion located in Calabasas, California. While many divorcing couples share a home which may need to be disposed of in some fashion during the divorce, it was the headline of this article that I found most fascinating – “Kim owns the land and Kanye owns the house?”.

The discussion that followed focused on how this could be, and what the impact may be in the disposition of this property upon their divorce. Assuming this is true, how might this be possible? Could it be a land lease situation – think a trailer park on steroids – where someone owns the physical residence structure who then pays rent or dues to the owner of the land itself for the privilege of placing your residence on it? Does Kanye own the track of land upon which the residence is situated but Kim owns all of the adjoining properties? Did Kim pay for the land and Kanye pay for the construction of the house itself? Perhaps as is common in most celebrity situations, some type of trusts were created to hold certain property or assets, and which afford different rights or entitlements to the holders or beneficiaries thereof. Regardless of how Kim and Kanye’s Calabasas home is held, the real question is whether it truly makes a difference when it comes to the disposition of the property in a divorce.

When it comes to California, anything is possible. California is what is known as a “community property” state. As such, it has its own set of standards as to what would constitute property divisible upon divorce, and who would be entitled to what. Who may “own” or have title to a given property, or to the form in which it may be held, might make a difference in how that property is disposed of in the event of divorce under California law. However, things may be considerably different if Kim and Kanye were getting a divorce in New Jersey. When it comes to the division of assets in a divorce, New Jersey operates by what is referred to as “equitable distribution”. If an asset or property is acquired during the course of a marriage, usually defined as being between the date of marriage and the date a complaint for divorce is filed, that property is generally considered to be a marital asset and thereby subject to equitable distribution in the event of divorce. Exceptions would include gifts or inheritances a party may receive from a third party, or assets acquired in the name of one party using “premarital” funds of that party. Assuming these exceptions don’t apply, the name under which the property is held, nor in what form, generally does not matter. Nor does it matter who paid for it. The inquiry is rather simple. Was it acquired during the marriage? Were marital assets or funds used to acquire it? If in Kim and Kanye’s case, the answer was yes, then under New Jersey law their Calabasas mega-mansion would be deemed a marital asset. It would be subject to equitable distribution. Please note that I use the term “equitable”, and not “equal”. This is not mere semantics. Once it has been established what property and assets constitute the marital estate, there are a myriad of factors under NJSA 2A:34-23.1 which a court must consider in order to effectuate “equitable” distribution of marital property. Who paid for what. Custodial obligations. Relative contributions. Prior agreements. These and many other factors may impact what distribution of marital assets would be “equitable”.

Continue reading ›

|

Ahhhh, the Coronavirus pandemic. As I write this blog post, most people are torn between feelings of fatigue and fear. After more than eight months since this pandemic began, most people are understandably weary over the personal, emotional, financial, and societal upheaval that this has caused. To say that this situation has put one’s coping skills to the test would be an understatement. People yearn for a return to some sense of “normalcy”. At the same time, that yearning has been tempered by the predicted “second wave” of this pandemic, with increasing infection rates and the return of lockdowns and restrictions that had been previously eased. At the early stages of this pandemic, I had written a blog post highlighting the significant economic impacts this pandemic was having (i.e. loss of jobs, diminished incomes, reduction in asset values and net worth, increasing debt, etc.) and how all of this was complicating the ability to resolve divorce matters. Between the economic upheaval and the uncertainty over what the future would bring, negotiating settlements was becoming a daunting task.

One of the topics which I had touched upon in my earlier blog post was the extent to which this pandemic might impact a family’s most valuable asset – their home. Prior to the pandemic, the housing market was looking strong. Homes were moving, prices were rising and everyone was looking forward to a robust spring market. However, when the pandemic hit everything, including the housing market, essentially came to a grinding halt. The number of new home listings, as well as mortgage applications, dramatically declined as stay home requirements took hold and the uncertainties made people leery of moving or taking on new financial commitments. While it was too early to tell how this pandemic would impact real estate values, this uncertainty would likely complicate how to approach the disposition of the marital home for purposes of equitable distribution in a divorce.

Jump forward seven months. The pandemic has resulted in a flight of people out of urban areas and choosing to movepexels-pixabay-164522-300x215 to the suburbs or country. Rather than living like sardines in close quarters with other people where the virus could more easily spread, people sought the openness and space. Further, the restrictions and lockdowns evaporated much of the quality of life living in a city would bring. The racial and societal upheaval following the death of George Floyd only exacerbated and reinforced people’s decision to move. The consequence? The housing market throughout much of New Jersey has exploded. Houses are getting snapped up as soon as they hit the market. Bidding wars are prevalent. Home values have risen dramatically. To say that it has become a buyers market would be an understatement. What impact has this had on divorce matters?

Continue reading ›

|

Various blogs have been written by members of our firm about situations where a custodial parents IMG_1930-300x225wants to move with the parties’ children to a state other than New Jersey.   Can a custodial parent live wherever he/she wants within the State of New Jersey?  Can a non-custodial parent ask a New Jersey family court just to stop a custodial parent from moving with the children to another town or city within the State of New Jersey?

Certainly some parents have reached an agreement with one another that they will live within a certain proximity to one another where they feel that it is in their own best interest for their children to live in certain areas of New Jersey or for the parents to live within a certain proximity to one another in order for their custody and parenting time agreement to work out.   New Jersey has a public policy of enforcing settlement agreements where they are fair and equitable.

What if parents do not have such an agreement?  Can the non-custodial parent prevent the custodial parent from living anywhere within the state of New Jersey that the custodial parent wants to live? In 2003, the Appellate Division addressed this question in the case of Schulze v. Morris, 361 N.J. Super. 419 (2003).  In this case, the parties had both been living in Middlesex County, New Jersey, but after the custodial parent was denied tenure at her teaching position, she found another teaching job in Sussex County and wanted to move with the parties’ child to Sussex County.  The non-custodial parent filed an Order to Show Cause seeking to stop the custodial parent from moving with the parties’ child to Sussex County.   The Appellate Division concluded that a custodial parent’s request to move to a different place within the State of New Jersey is not a “removal” action pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 for which the custodial parent has to obtain the permission of the Court.   However,  the Appellate Division recognized that a custodial parent’s move with a child can have significant impact on the relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent and that there are occasions where an intrastate relocation can constitute a substantial change in circumstance warranting a modification of the custody and parenting time arrangement.   When a noncustodial parent opposes an intrastate relocation of the child(ren) but the custodial parent on the basis that the move will be “deleterious to the relationship between the child and the non-residential custodial parent, or will be otherwise inimical to the child’s best interests”, then the Appellate Division in Schultze directed that the family court had to assess the factors in Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001), an interstate relocation case.

Continue reading ›

|

In enacting New Jersey statute, N.J.S.A. 9:2-2, the Legislature established a mechanism and25ebc4898eb30bc0cd7290a9cc18a32e-300x200 procedure for a divorced or unmarried parent when seeking to move with one’s children outside the state of New Jersey.  The statute provides:

“When the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the custody and maintenance of the minor children of parents divorced, separated or living separate, and such children are natives of this State, or have resided five years within its limits, they shall not be removed out of its jurisdiction against their own consent, if of suitable age to signify the same, nor while under that age without the consent of both parents, unless the court, upon cause shown, shall otherwise order. The court, upon application of any person in behalf of such minors, may require such security and issue such writs and processes as shall be deemed proper to effect the purposes of this section.”

The Courts in New Jersey have on several occasions interpreted this statute to address the standard for the family courts to apply when one parent wants to move out of New Jersey with the parties’ children, and the other parent objects to the children making such a move.   We addressed this standard in a previous blog with regard to parents having a shared 50/50 custodial arrangement based on the decision of the Appellate Division in Bisbing v. Bisbing, 445 N.J. Super. 207 (App.Div. 207), affirmed in part, modified, 230 N.J. 309  (2017).  In another blog, we addressed the standard for relocation based on the factors outlined in Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001).  In those cases,  before the children were removed from New Jersey, an application was made by the parent seeking to move.  Does that have to be the procedure?  Can the parent make that application after the move?  Is it the obligation of the objecting parent to make an application objecting to the children’s removal from New Jersey?

Continue reading ›

|

Nothing is more precious to us than our children. The Supreme Court of the United States has established the right to know one’s children as a fundamental Constitutional right. In New Jersey the9-08-3-300x225 right to know and raise one’s children is firmly entrenched in statutory and case law.  In our mobile society the right to know one’s children post-divorce has often come in conflict with the post-divorce business or social needs of the parents.  New Jersey, like many North Eastern states, has a highly transient population who has come here for business or personal reasons and may find business or social needs more compelling than identity to the State as home. When parents of children feel compelled to move, there is often contention over the impact of such a move on custody of the children. Continue reading ›

|

This week the media was abuzz with news of the demise of another celebrity marriage, this time with the separation of professional basketball player, Carmelo Anthony, from his wife Lala

file000142175851-300x230

Weddings rings and large bills of money

Anthony. The Anthony’s have been married since 2010 and have a 10 year-old son. Their potential divorce raises questions about what would happen with their assets and who would get custody of their son in their divorce, were such a case to arise in New Jersey. Continue reading ›

|

547eb27fd9ff1_-_gays-and-baby-0810-3-lgn[1]In a recently published decision, D.G. and S.H. v. K.S., FD-1386-14S, the Honorable Stephanie M. Wauters, J.S.C., issued what could prove to be a groundbreaking decision as the definition of family continues to develop and evolve with the ever changing times.  The original ninety-six page decision decision was abridged to twenty-two pages for the published decision in this matter. In this particular case, the Court was presented with a situation the litigants creatively referred to as a “tri-parenting” relationship, wherein three friends agreed to conceive, raise and take care of a child, O.S.H., together as one unit in two households.  Continue reading ›

|

file0001207444674New Jersey’s removal statute, N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, bars a parent from permanent relocating a child from the State of New Jersey without the other parent’s consent or the permission of the court.   In a previous 2013 blog, my colleague, Daniel Burton, Esq., discussed at length the standard created under our case law when a custodial parent seeks to move out of New Jersey with a child and the noncustodial parent objects. The present leading case on relocation is  Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001), in which the New Jersey Supreme Court listed 12 factors for court to consider when deciding applications for a parent to relocate a child from New Jersey. Continue reading ›

|

8-03-3

On January 12th 2015, the Appellate Division published its opinion in the case of Costa v. Costa.  In Costa, the parties were married in 1994 and divorced in 2006.  They had two children together, one being born in 1997 and the other in 2000.  By way of settlement agreement entered into at the time of the divorce, the parties agreed the mother would be the primary residential custodian and that they would share joint legal custody of the children. Continue reading ›

|

In a recently published opinion, dated February 19, 2014, the Appellate Division analyzed and reversed a trial court’s decision declining to gavelexercise jurisdiction pursuant to New Jersey’s version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (commonly referred to as UCCJEA).  In this particular case, designated S.B. v. G.M.B., the trial court made a determination  to decline jurisdiction, in favor of the courts of Ontario, Canada, despite the fact that this relief was not specifically requested by either party.  Continue reading ›