NJ & CT News

“I personally think it's a good idea,” said Edward Jurkeiewicz, a matrimonial lawyer with Lawrence & Jurkiewicz in Avon, CT. “I'd like to see the courts use something similar to child support guidelines, where the courts follow a standard formula. If they are inclined to deviate from the guidelines, then there has to be some sort of explanation.” Others fear that the fairly rigid guidelines would inhibit judges who would normally tailor alimony awards to the parties' particular circumstances.

NEW JERSEY

Constitutionality of Civil Union Law

Lambda Legal, a group that advocates for the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, has filed a motion in state court seeking a summary judgment declaration that, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in U.S. v. Windsor, New Jersey's restriction against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. Windsor held that if a same-sex couple's marriage is recognized by their home state, the federal government must treat them as married when applying the laws of United States. Therefore, these couples are entitled to file joint federal tax returns, receive Social Security survivor benefits, and take advantage of myriad other federal laws and programs that benefit married couples. New Jersey does permit same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, but couples joined through civil union are not covered by the Windsor holding. Therefore, according to the movants' brief in Garden State Equality v. Dow, MER-L-1729-11, “by relegating same-sex couples ' to civil union, the State denies them equal rights and benefits,” and does so “without a rational basis, given its commitment, expressed in both judicial and legislative determinations, to treat same- and different-sex couples equally.”

Changes Sought for Spousal Testimonial Privilege

Senate bill S-2909 seeks to alter the spousal privilege against testimony in criminal cases when the spouse was a witness in the case prior to the marriage, or when he or she handled evidence in a manner that changed it. New Jersey's Evidence Act of 1960 (codified in N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-17 and Evidence Rule 23) permits an accused to prohibit a spouse from testifying against him or her except under limited circumstances, such as when the crime in question was allegedly perpetrated against the testifying spouse.

The case that prompted the proposed law change involved a wife who was not allowed to testify against her husband, who years earlier, before they were married, had allegedly sexually assaulted her sister. Although the woman had been subpoenaed and gave testimony to a grand jury prior to her marriage to the accused, and allegedly laundered clothing that would have contained physical evidence of the sexual assault, the State Supreme Court determined in State v. Mauti, 208 N.J. 519 (2012), that she could not testify in the case.

'

'

CONNECTICUT

Alimony Reform Being Tried Again

During the current legislative term, Connecticut lawmakers will be considering proposals to reform the State's alimony award system. The group called Connecticut Alimony Reform is pushing once more for statutory guidelines similar to those that were defeated in the past legislative session. Its proposed formula would calculate the alimony amount awardable by determining the amount representing 30% of the monied spouse's income and subtracting from that an amount equal to 20% of the non-monied spouse's income. Thus, for example, if the husband makes $50,000 per year and the wife earns $20,000, alimony to the wife would be: $15,000 (30% of $50,000) ' $4,000 (20% of $20,000) = $11,000 per year. Those in favor of such a change cite predictability and fairness as its virtues.

“I personally think it's a good idea,” said Edward Jurkeiewicz, a matrimonial lawyer with Lawrence & Jurkiewicz in Avon, CT. “I'd like to see the courts use something similar to child support guidelines, where the courts follow a standard formula. If they are inclined to deviate from the guidelines, then there has to be some sort of explanation.” Others fear that the fairly rigid guidelines would inhibit judges who would normally tailor alimony awards to the parties' particular circumstances.

NEW JERSEY

Constitutionality of Civil Union Law

Lambda Legal, a group that advocates for the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, has filed a motion in state court seeking a summary judgment declaration that, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in U.S. v. Windsor, New Jersey's restriction against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. Windsor held that if a same-sex couple's marriage is recognized by their home state, the federal government must treat them as married when applying the laws of United States. Therefore, these couples are entitled to file joint federal tax returns, receive Social Security survivor benefits, and take advantage of myriad other federal laws and programs that benefit married couples. New Jersey does permit same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, but couples joined through civil union are not covered by the Windsor holding. Therefore, according to the movants' brief in Garden State Equality v. Dow, MER-L-1729-11, “by relegating same-sex couples ' to civil union, the State denies them equal rights and benefits,” and does so “without a rational basis, given its commitment, expressed in both judicial and legislative determinations, to treat same- and different-sex couples equally.”

Changes Sought for Spousal Testimonial Privilege

Senate bill S-2909 seeks to alter the spousal privilege against testimony in criminal cases when the spouse was a witness in the case prior to the marriage, or when he or she handled evidence in a manner that changed it. New Jersey's Evidence Act of 1960 (codified in N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-17 and Evidence Rule 23) permits an accused to prohibit a spouse from testifying against him or her except under limited circumstances, such as when the crime in question was allegedly perpetrated against the testifying spouse.

The case that prompted the proposed law change involved a wife who was not allowed to testify against her husband, who years earlier, before they were married, had allegedly sexually assaulted her sister. Although the woman had been subpoenaed and gave testimony to a grand jury prior to her marriage to the accused, and allegedly laundered clothing that would have contained physical evidence of the sexual assault, the State Supreme Court determined in State v. Mauti , 208 N.J. 519 (2012), that she could not testify in the case.

'

'