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.

|

1409593_gavel_3On September 2, 2014, the New Jersey Appellate Division published an opinion in the case of Krupinski v. Krupinski, reversing the trial court’s decision denying Mr. Krupinski’s motion to terminate alimony, and directing the trial court on remand to provide for an exchange of discovery and the possibility of an evidentiary hearing. The basis for Mr. Krupinski’s application was that his former spouse, from whom he was divorced in 1990, was receiving a large portion of this teacher’s pension through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Continue reading ›

|

The attorneys in this office, including myself, have written various blog posts concerning domestic violence, restraining orders, and the like.  However, no time has been dedicated to the aftermath of restraining orders and the possible consequences associated with violating a restraining order, whether intentionally or unintentionally. As most people know, the purpose of a restraining order is to avoid future communication or contact between the parties.  Therefore, any communication or contact thereafter, while a restraining order remains active, is considered a contempt of that restraining order. Continue reading ›

|

The Family Court handles divergent case types. Although most people think the issues handled by Family Part judges relate to divorce, the reach of the family court is far broader. Many of the controversies resolved by the court deal with issues regarding children including Juvenile matters and matters involving abuse and neglect. Whether embedded in a divorce or presented to the court as an independent action, there are no more important issues faced by a Family Part chancellor than child-centered issues. The Division of Child Protection and Permanency, formally known as The Division of Youth and Family Services, is charged under our law with protecting children and supervising those custodians whose action causes concern. Certainly the mandate of the Division is to keep families united, but often the Division takes custody of children and places them outside their home if it is determined that the child is endangered in the household. The Division by mandate responds to reports of abuse received from known responsible sources as well as anonymously reported instances of abuse or neglect. Continue reading ›

|

The news board lit-up this week with the story of Rachel Canning, age 18, the teenager who earlier this year sued her parents for child support and college expenses, filing a domestic violence complaint and obtaining a temporary restraining order against her 18 year old boyfriend, the boy whom her parents wanted her to stop seeing.  (http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/news/local/2014/07/22/teen-sued-parents-gets-restraining-order-boyfriend/12984967/)  Continue reading ›

|

In representing a divorce client, one’s inquiry and representation is primarily focused in the major issues in controversy such as the custody of minor children, alimony and child support, the equitable distribution property, and payment of professional fees. Indeed, these are important and crucial issues. However, in the heat of battle, smaller side issues could have a tendency to get lost. The recently published case of Leggio v. Leggio served as a reminder of one of those issues, namely a spouse’s ability to effectuate a change of name incident to a divorce. Continue reading ›

|

On August 6, 2014, the Appellate Division published the decision in KAF v. DLM., in which the Court clarified the standard that family courts are to apply when considering applications by a third party seeking custody and/or visitation and claims that he or she is a “psychological parent” to a child who already has fit and involved legal parent(s). Continue reading ›

|

On July 28, 2014, the New Jersey Appellate Division approved for publication the case of R.K. v. F.K. (Docket No. A-4165-11T4), which further clarified the issue of how courts in New Jersey are to determine applications to modify existing custody and parenting time arrangements.   In August, 2007 the wife obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) against her husband, citing harassment. The parties had been married since 2001 and had three young children together.  That month, the family court issued a Final Restraining Order (FRO) and gave the wife temporary custody of the children.  The husband was ordered to attend anger management classes, and he was given parenting time on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays.  Continue reading ›

|

Pursuant to New Jersey statutes, and a common term in lawyers’ retainer agreements, is often a provision for the attorney to retain what is referred to as a charging lien in the assets of the marital estate to allow an attorney to be paid for legal services. Usually the existence of attorney’s right to a charging lien is merely academic as matters glide through the system. Occasionally, however, issues arise regarding an attorney’s fee which require court intervention. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:13-15, an attorney is entitled to a lien against a marital assets in controversy for the purpose of the payment of legal fees. The attorney’s lien is an inchoate right that attaches to the assets of the marital estate upon the completion of the ttorney’s involvement in the matter. Continue reading ›

|

In a recently published trial court decision, Marsico-v-Marsico, the Honorable Lawrence R. Jones, J.S.C., dealt with the novel question of law as to whether or not a designated power of attorney could appear and testify on behalf of or in lieu of a divorce litigant.  After addressing this issue, Judge Jones ultimately decided that a power of attorney could not in fact appear and testify on behalf of a divorce litigant.  Judge Jones was able to delineate and distinguish the factual circumstances of prior case law wherein similar situations were allowed to proceed. Continue reading ›

|

Legislation has recently been introduced in the New Jersey Legislature that would allow for the issuance of Restraining Orders in Non-Domestic Violence situations. While its passage and/or application to family law matters is problematic, this led me to think about a question frequently posed by many of my divorce clients – short of someone being found guilty of committing an act of Domestic Violence, “Is there any way of forcing my (bleep) spouse out of the marital residence until such time we are divorced?”. Most of the time my answer would be, “Unfortunately, no” . Would this proposed legislation change that answer, or is it time for the courts to revisit how they address these situations? Continue reading ›