The twelve infamous "NEWBURGH v. ARRIGO" factors for COLLEGE costs
In evaluating the claim for contribution toward the cost of higher education, courts should consider all relevant factors, per the case of Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982), including:
To see how the NJ courts consider and weigh the factors described in Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982), see, Gaynell Gac (aka Gaynell Ciccarelli) v. Paul Ludwig Gac, decided by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on May 18, 2006 (A-9-05)--N.J.-- (2006).
Relocation AFTER divorce? What to do?
In the case, Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001), the NJ Supreme Court clarified the legal standards that should apply when addressing a removal application, and what role visitation plays in that determination. It announced twelve factors a court must assess before making a determination. These are the twelve factors:
The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that not all factors will be relevant or equally weighted. To see how the NJ courts consider and weigh these factors read the case, Baures v. Lewis. But beware, in a shared physical custody case (where both parents spend almost equal physical time with the child), the Appellate Division ruled on March 27, 2002, in the case of O'Connor v. O'Connor, 349 N.J. Super. 381 (2002), that an entirely different approach applies!
Plus, as of June 27, 2003, in the case of Schulze v. Morris, f/k/a Schulze, 361 N.J. Super. 419 (2003), the Appellate Division ruled that a joint legal, residential custodial parent's relocation--with the child--to another in-state location may constitute a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of the existing custodial and parenting-time arrangement.
Grandparent visitation in NJ after the US Supreme Ct case: Troxel v. Granville
To see how the NJ courts address the issue of third party (including grandparents and siblings) visitation in a family setting, see, Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84 (2003), in which Grandparents, won the right to seek visitation with their grandchildren under NJ's Grandparent Visitation Statute, N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1.
Setting the amount of child support--at time of, or after--divorce
To see how the NJ Supreme Court determined, on January 27, 2005, that you are never too rich to retire, at least when child support is at issue, see Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250 (2005).
Dealing with alimony--at time of, or after--divorce
To see how the NJ courts address the statutory criteria for permanent and limited duration alimony, at the time of divorce, as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, see, Cox v. Cox, 335 N.J. Super. 465 (App. Div. 2000).
To see how the NJ Supreme Court determined that the marital standard of living should be the "measure" for assessing initial awards of alimony--and for reviewing any motion to modify alimony thereafter--see Crews v. Crews, 164 N.J. 11 (2000). But, in Weishaus v. Weishaus, 180 N.J. 131 (2004), the NJ Supreme Court clarified its ruling in Crews v. Crews, by holding that a trial court has the discretion not to make a finding as to a couple's matrimonial standard of living (MSOL), if the case is uncontested, yet involves a provision for support.
To see how the NJ Supreme Court decided, on April 6, 2005, that marital fault was not relevant to an alimony award (except in two distinct circumstances) or a counsel fee award, see, Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70 (2005).
Dealing with a business in divorce
To see how the NJ courts address valuation issues of a closely held (or "family") business in the context of a divorce action see, Brown v. Brown, 348 N.J. Super. 466 (App. Div. 2002), denied cert. by the NJ Supreme Ct, July 16, 2002.
Computers, E-mail, and Discovery in the context of DIVORCE
In White v. White, 344 N.J. Super. 211, 781 A.2d 85 (Ch. Div. 2001), a New Jersey trial court held that the state's wiretap statute was not violated by a wife's retrieval of E-mails between her husband and his paramour from a computer the husband kept in the marital residence during the divorce action. Why is this legal? According to the court, the law prohibits interception of messages in the process of transmission, NOT obtaining files, or copies of messages or E-mails that had already been sent or received. Hiring a PI to recover material on the husband's computer's hard disk was apparently OK as well!
More New Jersey legal resources for "JT" viewers:
WARNING & CAUTION
This Web site provides links to information that is already available to the public. No attorney-client relationship is established by your use of this site. See an attorney in your jurisdiction to learn how the cases and court rules and statutes linked here might or might not apply to your matter. Remember, court rules, laws, and cases are always subject to change, so make sure you check with local counsel before doing anything that could compromise your position. And, my book, The Boomer's Guide to Divorce: And a New Life, however generally informative, is not meant to be, nor can it substitute for, personal legal advice in your highly specific matter. As this book describes in detail, the law is always changing, and to make sure you get--or keep--what is rightfully yours; you MUST continually check the law in your state, and get advice tailor-made for the facts of your case (even if it's just one time) from a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.
TO LOYAL "JT" VIEWERS AND LEE LEONARD FANS
If you're so inclined, send a note to Lee Leonard and say "hi."
Table of Contents
Media and Photos
The Boomer's Guide to Divorce: And a New Life
© 2004-2015. Marlene M. Browne. All Rights Reserved.