This Tuesday, August 8, 2017, the New Jersey Supreme Court explicitly overruled Baures v. Lewis, the Supreme Court case, which since 2001 had set for the standard for removal of minor children permanently from New Jersey. The Court found “special justification” for departing from its prior ruling, which had favored the custodial parent in disputes over relocation. In Bisbing v. Bisbing, the Court held that the new standard will be the “best interest of the child” in all relocation cases regardless of who is the custodial parent.
Let us help you with your family law issues, call our office today. And remember, at my office, you are NEVER just another case!
For the second year in a row, I have been awarded the Client Satisfaction award from the American Institute of Family Law Attorneys. The award recognizes excellence, and the efforts this office makes to guide clients into making wise decisions taking all the aspects of their situation into account. Let us help you with your family law issues, call our office today. And remember, at my office, you are NEVER just another case!
Common scenario is that one of the divorcing spouses gets the former marital home in the divorce. All she or he has to do to keep it is re-finance- usually within a year or two – to remove their former spouses’ name from the mortgage. Not complicated – not difficult – until that is the in-home spouse neglects/forgets/refuses to re-finance. In a recent unpublished decision in the Chancery Division – Ocean County, Judge Lawrence Jones granted the former husband’s application for post judgment relief, and ordered the former wife to sell the house to pay off the mortgage, and to appoint him as her attorney in fact to market and sell the house. See LH v. DH unpublished (Docket no 20-4-8482) but available from the Rutgers Law Library
Feel free to contact the Law office of Helen Glass, should you have post judgment issues. My 30 + years of experience can be put to work for you.
File this one under SERIOUSLY?? On December 1, 2015 our NJ Supreme Court heard arguments in “Robert Smith v. Millville Rescue Squad.” In this case, Robert Smith, a 17 year employee of the Rescue Squad was fired immediately after telling his supervisor that he and his wife would not be able to reconcile their differences, and that he would be filing for divorce based on irreconcilable differences grounds. Smith sued, and the trial court dismissed his Complaint. An appeal to the Appellate Division re-instated the Complaint and the Rescue Squad appealed that decision to the NJ Supreme Court. Now, to be fair, despite Smith’s allegation that he was told he was being fired because the divorce would be “ugly,” the Squad did allege that the firing was because of declining performance. This despite the fact that Smith had continually received raises, and good performance reviews. I suspect that there is much, much more than meets the eye going on in this case, and will keep a close eye for a decision. In the meantime mull over the effect that a reversal will have on employer-employee relationships. THINK of the new application for employment where the employer cannot ask if the applicant has felony convictions, but can ask if he or she is contemplating, has or will file for divorce . . .
Senate bill S2553 was recently passed out of committee. This bill, which is headed to our state Assembly would require that all palimony agreements entered into before January 18, 2010 (the date the amendment to NJSA 25:1-5 was signed into law) be in writing to be enforceable. This marks a major departure from current case law which has declined to apply the 2010 law retroactively, and if passed will mean that anyone seeking to enforce oral promises of support should head off to their nearest lawyer’s office to have an agreement prepared. To do otherwise will future support in the event of a break up in serious doubt.
If you or anyone you know will be or could be affected by this potential loss of support contact the Law office of Helen Glass.
Passaic County Judge Sohail Mohammed, based upon DNA paternity testing recently ruled that “AS”, the alleged father of twins, was in fact the father of only one of the children, and therefore would be responsible for child support for one child only. The mother, who was identified as “TM” admitted that she had had relations with two men in addition to AS the same week that the twins were conceived. Apparently, and listen closely folks, approximately 1 in every 13,000 reported paternity cases involved twins having separate fathers – who would ever thunk? Part of this phenomenon is due to the increased use of technology to assist in reproduction – and as in this case the mother’s promiscuity! I guess these twins will have lots of interesting conversations in the years to come.
Feel free to contact the Law office of Helen Glass, should you have paternity, child custody, visitation or child support issues. My 30 years of experience can be put to work for you.
Almost every day I get an email from an individual – usually claiming they now live in Japan (or some other far off place) – and further claiming that they were divorced in “your jurisdiction” and that their spouse owes them a very large sum of money for equitable distribution and has refused to pay. They sometimes give more “facts” to bolster their claims, and end with a request that I represent them to collect the monies due. Of course, recognizing the old “Nigerian scam” I hardly ever reply, unless it is to start the scam the scammer game, which quite frankly although I have seen it carried out to hilarious lengths, does not excite me enough to engage. I just usually tell them that I don’t “do” scams and advise them that I’ve forwarded their email to the local FBI office.
The scam, for those of you who may not know, is that the attorney is hired – the debtor pops up and pays in full via a check (drawn on either a non-existent bank, or a non-existent bank account). The attorney deposits the check – pays his fees out of the check, and sends the remaining monies to the “client.” Several weeks later the phony check bounces, and the attorney’s bank removes the monies from the attorney’s account. The “client” of course by this time has vanished into cyberspace, leaving the attorney on the hook for the entire amount.
I’ve recently learned that the same scam is being attempted on electricians and other tradesman as well as other professionals.
Today I learned of a new twist, where a lawyer was scammed out of nearly $300,000. He had clicked on an email from what he thought was the US Postal Service. The website downloaded a virus that tracked every keystroke he made on his computer. Next time he tried to access his bank account – the scammer intercepted the transmission, and instead of the usual sign in page, a webpage came up which asked him to type in his pin number plus another number that the page gave him. He complied not realizing that the other number was a wire transfer code. This code plus the pin initiated a transfer of ALL the money in his account to a Chinese bank account. He did not discover the scam until a couple of days later when he tried to access his account and discovered that there were no funds available! His bank declined to cover the loss since the attorney had initiated the transfer his bank
Dumb mistake or victim of high level fraud? I guess we all have our opinion but this example is different because it did not, as is the usual case capitalize on someone’s greed.
My remedy of course is to not use PIN numbers, and to be very careful about what I click on – I also suggest not keeping over the FDIC limit in any one account.
Keep safe and vigilant – and remember it CAN happen to you – not only the other guy.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue of Palimony, holding on September 25, 2014, that agreements for Palimony entered into before the law was amended to require Palimony agreements to be in writing does not apply to agreements entered into before the law was amended in 2010. The rational for the decision was that the legislature did not intend to retroactively void oral palimony contracts that predated the amendment to the law. The case, Maeker v. Ross is approved for publication and is available for a short time on New Jersey Courts Online, and should be available soon in the Rutgers Law Library.