NJ & CT News

CONNECTICUT

Lack of QDRO Does Not Excuse Failure to Pay

The Appellate Court of Connecticut in December overturned a trial court's denial of a woman's request that her ex-husband be compelled to pay her that portion of his pension he had agreed to pay her in their separation agreement. In the case of Cifaldi v. Cifaldi, 118 Conn.App. 325 (Conn.App., 12/8/09, the trial court had concluded that because qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) were supposed to have been filed with the husband's pension plans by the wife's attorney, and because more than ten years later, when the husband retired, the QDROs had not been processed, the wife had no right to the pension proceeds. On appeal, the court looked at the separation agreement's terms, which clearly stated that half of the husband's pension benefits were to go to the wife. The QDRO requirement, the court said, should be treated merely as an administrative tool used to effectuate the transfer of the marital property. Said the court, “[W]e do not read the parties' agreement in the case before us to make the vesting of the plaintiff's property interest in a portion of the defendant's pension benefits to be in some way contingent on the successful processing of the QDROs. To put it simply, we conclude that the plaintiff's property interest in portions of the defendant's pension benefits was not predicated on the processing of paperwork; the plaintiff cannot be deprived of this important asset on the basis of a mere administrative error.” The court therefore held that the wife was entitled to her portion of the husband's pension benefits.

The trial court's additional holding that the wife's rights were foreclosed by the doctrine of laches also did not survive the appeal. The laches defense requires a showing of two elements: 1) that there has been an inexcusable delay in bringing the action, and 2) that the delay has prejudiced the defendant. Here, the “prejudice” the trial court relied upon to find that the doctrine applied was that the husband had paid taxes on the pension payments. He had not, however, otherwise changed his position in reliance on his wife's failure to act quickly to recover the funds owed her. The Appellate Court of Connecticut determined that any tax the husband had paid could either be recovered from the government or deducted from the amount owed the ex-wife. Concluded the court, “The mere fact that the defendant might have paid taxes on property he received in error does not immunize him from being required to repay the plaintiff altogether.”

NEW JERSEY

Court Says Paid 'Escort' Is in a Dating Relationship Under Domestic Violence Act

Paying for another's companionship can be a form of “dating” that triggers statutory protections against domestic violence, an appeals court ruled in a case of first impression in New Jersey. The Appellate Division on Thursday upheld an Essex County judge's final restraining order against a men's club patron who made terroristic threats against a dancer to whom he regularly advanced funds. The plaintiff in J.S. v. J.F., A-2552-08, testified that she and the defendant were in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, though most of their “dates” were at the various clubs where she danced. Despite the man's claims the relationship was purely “professional,” the appeals court found no support for the argument that a socializing with a paid escort does not amount to a “dating relationship” under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. Judge Clarkson Fisher Jr. said courts “should vigilantly guard against a slavish adherence to any formula that does not consider the parties' own understanding of their relationship as colored by socio-economic and generational influences.”

Defamation Claims Involving Jewish Law Not Justiciable in State Court

New Jersey's Appellate Division ruled in Abdelhak v. The Jewish Press, A-2023-08, that an Orthodox Jewish man could not pursue his defamation claims against his ex-wife, her friends and a Jewish newspaper because a jury would necessarily have had to become entangled in the intricacies and traditions of the Jewish faith in order to decide the case, thus violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The plaintiff had sued the defendant Jewish newspaper for falsely printing his name on a “Seruv list” of men ordered in contempt by a rabbinical court for failing to give their wives a “Get,” a husband's permission for divorce. The appeals court said the defamation case would require a jury to determine how a Seruv listing is viewed within the Orthodox Jewish community and whether an Orthodox Jew would be offended by another's refusal to provide a “Get.” The ruling affirmed a Bergen County judge's decision to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

CONNECTICUT

Lack of QDRO Does Not Excuse Failure to Pay

The Appellate Court of Connecticut in December overturned a trial court's denial of a woman's request that her ex-husband be compelled to pay her that portion of his pension he had agreed to pay her in their separation agreement. In the case of Cifaldi v. Cifaldi , 118 Conn.App. 325 (Conn.App., 12/8/09, the trial court had concluded that because qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) were supposed to have been filed with the husband's pension plans by the wife's attorney, and because more than ten years later, when the husband retired, the QDROs had not been processed, the wife had no right to the pension proceeds. On appeal, the court looked at the separation agreement's terms, which clearly stated that half of the husband's pension benefits were to go to the wife. The QDRO requirement, the court said, should be treated merely as an administrative tool used to effectuate the transfer of the marital property. Said the court, “[W]e do not read the parties' agreement in the case before us to make the vesting of the plaintiff's property interest in a portion of the defendant's pension benefits to be in some way contingent on the successful processing of the QDROs. To put it simply, we conclude that the plaintiff's property interest in portions of the defendant's pension benefits was not predicated on the processing of paperwork; the plaintiff cannot be deprived of this important asset on the basis of a mere administrative error.” The court therefore held that the wife was entitled to her portion of the husband's pension benefits.

The trial court's additional holding that the wife's rights were foreclosed by the doctrine of laches also did not survive the appeal. The laches defense requires a showing of two elements: 1) that there has been an inexcusable delay in bringing the action, and 2) that the delay has prejudiced the defendant. Here, the “prejudice” the trial court relied upon to find that the doctrine applied was that the husband had paid taxes on the pension payments. He had not, however, otherwise changed his position in reliance on his wife's failure to act quickly to recover the funds owed her. The Appellate Court of Connecticut determined that any tax the husband had paid could either be recovered from the government or deducted from the amount owed the ex-wife. Concluded the court, “The mere fact that the defendant might have paid taxes on property he received in error does not immunize him from being required to repay the plaintiff altogether.”

NEW JERSEY

Court Says Paid 'Escort' Is in a Dating Relationship Under Domestic Violence Act

Paying for another's companionship can be a form of “dating” that triggers statutory protections against domestic violence, an appeals court ruled in a case of first impression in New Jersey. The Appellate Division on Thursday upheld an Essex County judge's final restraining order against a men's club patron who made terroristic threats against a dancer to whom he regularly advanced funds. The plaintiff in J.S. v. J.F., A-2552-08, testified that she and the defendant were in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, though most of their “dates” were at the various clubs where she danced. Despite the man's claims the relationship was purely “professional,” the appeals court found no support for the argument that a socializing with a paid escort does not amount to a “dating relationship” under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. Judge Clarkson Fisher Jr. said courts “should vigilantly guard against a slavish adherence to any formula that does not consider the parties' own understanding of their relationship as colored by socio-economic and generational influences.”

Defamation Claims Involving Jewish Law Not Justiciable in State Court

New Jersey's Appellate Division ruled in Abdelhak v. The Jewish Press, A-2023-08, that an Orthodox Jewish man could not pursue his defamation claims against his ex-wife, her friends and a Jewish newspaper because a jury would necessarily have had to become entangled in the intricacies and traditions of the Jewish faith in order to decide the case, thus violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The plaintiff had sued the defendant Jewish newspaper for falsely printing his name on a “Seruv list” of men ordered in contempt by a rabbinical court for failing to give their wives a “Get,” a husband's permission for divorce. The appeals court said the defamation case would require a jury to determine how a Seruv listing is viewed within the Orthodox Jewish community and whether an Orthodox Jew would be offended by another's refusal to provide a “Get.” The ruling affirmed a Bergen County judge's decision to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.