Support

Fighting over Child Support After the Pink Slip Arrives

June 1, 2009 | Kearns Rotolo Law

New York Times
By: Julie Bosman

The same story echoed a dozen times through Room E8 of Manhattan Family Court in a single day: fathers, pinched by the recession, pleading for a reduction in child support.

A salesman at Saks Fifth Avenue who is estranged from his teenage daughter said he feared he would be included in the next round of layoffs expected at his store.

A man who had been laid off from a factory said he managed to find work at Mets games, but for less pay, $9 an hour. Another man, on the verge of eviction, begged for a break from his $315 monthly payments.

“Last week was my child’s birthday, and I couldn’t get him a present,” he said, burying his head in his hands. “This is killing me.”

Since January, Family Court in New York has been filled with urgent requests like these, alarming judges and overwhelming calendars with what are known as modification cases.

Palimony-in-Writing Bill Passed by Senate Judiciary Committee

February 23, 2009 | Kearns Rotolo Law

By Michael Booth

New Jersey Law Journal

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday approved bipartisan-sponsored legislation that would require all palimony agreements to be in writing and signed in order to be enforceable.

Palimony Re-examined and Redefined

September 16, 2008 | Kearns Rotolo Law

Court holds that cohabitation is not essential for an award
By Edward S. Snyder, 193 N.J.L.J.652
The law of palimony has evolved and expanded over the last three decades and the Supreme Court of New Jersey has been active in defining its parameters. During the 2007-08 term the court once again delved into this area of family law by deciding Devaney v. L’Esperance, 195 N.J. 247 (2008). holding that cohabitation is not essential for an award of palimony, however declaring that it is just one of several factors to be considered by a trial court
Genesis of the Palimony Claim in New Jersey

Palimony is essentially “alimony” where the parties were never married. The true definition of palimony, however, can be described “in general terms [a]s a claim for support between unmarried persons.” Devaney, supra, 195 N.J. 247 at 16.

Demystifying the imputation of income.

August 5, 2008 | Kearns Rotolo Law

“[A]ny party is free to retire, take a vow of poverty, write poetry, or hawk roses in an airport, if he or she sees fit. The only limit is discontinuance of the financial aid the former spouse requires. The reason for this is that the duty of self-fulfillment must give way to the pre-existing duty which runs between spouses who have been in a marriage which has failed.” Deegan v. Deegan, 254 N.J. Super. 350, 358-59.

New Jersey Supreme Court says cohabitation no longer a requirement for Palimony.

July 7, 2008 | Kearns Rotolo Law

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled last month that “[c]ohabitation is not an essential requirement for a cause of action for palimony, but a marital-type relationship is required.” In Devaney V. L’Esperance, Not Reported A.2d., 2008 WL 2491976 (NJ). The Court by a 6-1 majority broke away from the precedent set by almost every state court by saying a Plaintiff need only prove that there was a “marital-type relationship.” The Court found that no such relationship existed in this case.

In New Jersey a Child Support Agreement that Deviates from the Guidelines is Superseded by the State when the Payee is a Recipient of TANF

August 2, 2007 | Kearns Rotolo Law

Let’s say you and your ex have an agreement, whether verbal or written, that you will pay to your ex $300 in child support, when according to the Guidelines, you should be paying $800. Well, this is obviously agreeable to the payor.

Your obligation will certainly change if your ex becomes a recipient of TANF, i.e. welfare. TANF stands for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

New Jersey Court Orders Retroactive Increase in Child Support Where Motion was Never Filed

June 17, 2007 | Kearns Rotolo Law

Hamilton v. Mamroud, N.J.Super.A.D. 2007(unpublished opinion).

The parties had one son together. They divorced agreeing to joint custody with mother having primary residence.

Eleven years after the divorce, in November of 2001, the Middlesex County Board of Social Services notified both parties that either could seek a review of child support. The mother notified the board that she was interested in the review.

Thereafter, the father was notified by the Board that it was gathering his financial information from his employer. The board filed a motion to increase support on November 7, 2003, and then again on November 25, 2003 asking the court to make the increase retroactive to November 25, 2001(the date of the original notice).

Custody Battle – Bobby Brown Sues Whitney Houston

May 18, 2007 | Kearns Rotolo Law

On April 26, 2007, Bobby Brown filed a lawsuit against ex-wife Whitney Houston in an attempt to change the custody terms as to their 14 year-old daughter, Bobbi Kristina. In addition to the shared custody, he is seeking child support and spousal support. A court date has been set for June 15, 2007.

Whitney%20Houston%20kissing%20bye.jpg Bobby%20Brown.jpg

New Jersey Child Support: Who Pays?

March 30, 2007 | Kearns Rotolo Law

In New Jersey, someone other than a child’s biological parent can be responsible for making child support payments.

Specifically, under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, persons who are not the natural parents may have an obligation to support those children as to which they are in loco parentis. Ross v. Ross, 126 N.J.Super 394 (J. & D.R. Ct. 1972).

http://www.childsupportweb.com

Child Support & Your 401(k)

January 20, 2007 | Kearns Rotolo Law

http://www.childsupportweb.com

Does it sound reasonable for a parent to seek a downward modification of his/her child support obligation when he/she has substantial assets sitting a 401(k) account that are not considered in the child support calculation? What about the child’s right to financial support?

retirement%20picture.JPG A party’s contribution into a 401(k) account and the income generated in a 401(k) are not used in the child support calculation as it is not considered available to the defendant over an extended period of time. The assets are not ordinarily accessible and the party withdrawing from the account would face an exorbinant tax burden for withdrawing money prior to retirement.

Forrestall v. Forrestall, 389 N.J.Super. 1, 910 A.2d 621 (2006).