The crossroads of law (evidence, civil procedure, jurisdiction, legal correspondence and service) and social media continue to be a hot topic for litigators. Every day courts across the country are faced with evidentiary issues regarding communications posted on social media. But how about starting a lawsuit via social media? How about submitting to jurisdiction due to your use of social media?
Where does generosity towards family members end and the legal obligation to support them begin? Who is a parent and when does voluntarily taking on that role have legal ramifications? These questions have been analyzed, but not resolved, by the New Jersey Appellate Division in the context of a child support modification application, in Williams v. McCloud.
Most practitioners that handle divorce, family law and complex custody cases know that it is axiomatic that to change, alter, or modify custody or parenting time, or to issue a parenting time sanction, the court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law. In fact, all decisions made by the court from the bench in family cases that are not considered temporary trigger that requirement.
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed a lower court ruling on a post-judgment motion in which the lower court denied an obligor’s application to modify child support, where proper financial documentation was not supplied with the motion. This decision highlights some key components of the nuts and bolts of filing such post-judgment motions.
I recently read an article in The Huffington Post outlining the reasons why second marriages are more likely to end in divorce. It’s a troubling thought for those once-divorced individuals who are optimistic about remarriage and hope never to undergo the experience of divorcing again.
In my opinion, most people (typically women) decide whether or not to change their name to a maiden name at the actual time of the divorce proceeding, if not sooner. The decision is a largely personal one and in my years of practice I’ve heard the gamut of reasons as to why to or not to change from the married name. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-21 is the statute that governs legal name changes in New Jersey.
It is common and often unfortunate that I meet with clients who decided, for whatever reason, that they would represent themselves during a divorce proceeding. There are cases where that decision may be perfectly acceptable. More often than not, the people I have met are coming to me because they are totally unsatisfied and/or unhappy with the deal they’ve made for themselves and are looking to an attorney to get them a better deal.
April 18, 2017 is the 2016 tax filing deadline and it’s quickly approaching. The Government does not care that you are going through potentially the most difficult time period in your life. Like the Godfather, the IRS wants its money.
My contributions to the Riker Danzig Family Law Blog are usually limited to matters dealing strictly with issues that squarely impact divorce litigation. I recently researched a New Jersey Supreme Court employment law case decided this past summer, however, that I found of particular importance as it relates to client management for divorcing clients, and has been a burgeoning issue in recent years: clients being concerned about loss of employment resulting directly from their divorce.
In the recent decision of a New Jersey family court, the standards for out-of-state relocation with a minor child were examined and the court addressed what shared physical custody really means for purposes of determining removal applications.