NJ & CT News

Under the terms of the proposed Family Collaborative Law Act, several circumstances would automatically bring the informal marriage dissolution process to an end, including: 1) if either party gave notice that they wanted out of the deal to collaborate; 2) if either party filed any court case, absent the other's consent; 3) if either party obtained a restraining order against the other in accordance with the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act; 4) if either party did not provide the information needed for the couple to resolve their dispute; or 5) if a collaborative lawyer withdrew from the case. In addition, if the couple are unsuccessful in trying to reach agreement, the process will end and the collaborative lawyer(s) will have to withdraw from representing either party in any subsequent litigation.

A Senate version of the measure is awaiting a floor vote, but it has already been approved by the State Senate Judiciary Committee and the Budget and Appropriations Committee.

Bill to Do Away with Permanent Alimony Moves Forward

New Jersey's Assembly Judiciary Committee has recommended approval of a bill (A-845/971/1649) to change the State's alimony system to eliminate permanent awards. If the measure is ultimately passed and signed into law, it will provide judges, attorneys and divorced parties with guidelines for determining alimony amounts, as well as when it is appropriate to modify or discontinue alimony. Groups for and against the change to the law have, according to one of the bill's primary sponsors, Assemblyman Charles Mainor, D-Hudson, “reached a point where both sides are satisfied.”

The bill's proposed judicial guidelines call for limiting the duration of alimony based on the length of time the marriage or civil union lasted. For example, for a couple married less than five years, the guidelines suggest alimony should not exceed half the number of months of the marriage. As the length of the marriage or civil union's endurance increases ' up to 20 years ' that percentage goes up. For a marriage that lasted over 20 years, indefinite alimony could be imposed, at the judge's discretion.

Alimony also should not exceed the recipient's needs, and it is modifiable by a judge if the recipient enters into a new relationship and cohabits with that partner. In such cases, judges should consider the circumstances of the new relationship, including its stability and the financial assistance the recipient is getting from the new partner. And, significantly for divorcing parties dealing with our current economic climate, judges would have greater discretion to modify alimony awards if the payor spouse becomes underemployed or unemployed.

Suit Against Israeli Divorce Attorneys Properly Thrown Out

New Jersey's Appellate Division agrees with Bergen County, NJ, Superior Court Judge Charles Powers Jr.: The state's courts lack jurisdiction over Israeli attorneys who a New Jersey man says defamed him during divorce proceedings before Israeli civil and religious courts. The man, Sharon Ben-Haim, and his wife were visiting Israel when the wife filed for divorce there. The man then returned to New Jersey and began his own action against the wife, but the Israeli proceeding went forward. Ben-Haim was ordered by the Israeli Rabbinical court to return to that country to take part. After he did so, he claims he was denied permission to leave Israel until child support matters could be settled. (An order to return the couple's child to the United States has been issued in accordance with the terms of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, but the child remains in Israel pending appeals.)

Ben-Haim claimed that New Jersey had specific jurisdiction over the Israeli attorneys because their actions were not confined to Israel, but reached into New Jersey: They convinced a New Jersey Rabbinical court to impose community sanctions against Ben-Haim in conjunction with the divorce. New Jersey Appellate Division Judges Victor Ashrafi, Jerome St. John and George Leone were not convinced that the Bergen County judge erred in finding that the court had no personal jurisdiction over the Israeli law firm or its lawyers, however. They concluded that requiring the Israeli attorneys to defend themselves in New Jersey would “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,” because it was “undisputed that defendants neither reside nor do business in New Jersey, and that the lawyers and law firm operate in Israel without soliciting business here. The only link to New Jersey is plaintiff's residence and his action in the Family Part.”

CONNECTICUT

Connecticut Statute of Limitations Permits Civil Suit for Long-Ago Sex Abuse

A woman who was abused as a child by her mother's boyfriend but who did not bring suit for damages until nearly 25 years had passed has been awarded $2.75 million by a Willimantic, CT, jury. The abuse began when the woman was seven years old and continued until she was 14. Now, 33 years later, Dawn Andalora has received some compensation for her suffering, despite the long passage of time between the harm and the lawsuit. According to the plaintiff's attorney, Frank Bartlett Jr., of Bartlett Burns in Cheshire, CT, the victim only recently became aware that she had any legal recourse against her abuser, but Connecticut's “civil statute of limitations generally gives victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault or sexual exploitation 30 years after they reach age 18 to file a personal injury action based on the crime.”

'

NEW JERSEY

Collaborative Divorce Bill Progresses

With a unanimous vote, New Jersey's Assembly approved a measure allowing divorcing couples to use a collaborative process rather than taking the usual court-based route to marriage dissolution. If the bill passes, it will reduce costs for those couples who are able to work more closely together to dissolve their marriages. Parties using the collaborative process would still be required to provide information to the opposing side, but they would not have to resort to formal discovery procedures.

Under the terms of the proposed Family Collaborative Law Act, several circumstances would automatically bring the informal marriage dissolution process to an end, including: 1) if either party gave notice that they wanted out of the deal to collaborate; 2) if either party filed any court case, absent the other's consent; 3) if either party obtained a restraining order against the other in accordance with the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act; 4) if either party did not provide the information needed for the couple to resolve their dispute; or 5) if a collaborative lawyer withdrew from the case. In addition, if the couple are unsuccessful in trying to reach agreement, the process will end and the collaborative lawyer(s) will have to withdraw from representing either party in any subsequent litigation.

A Senate version of the measure is awaiting a floor vote, but it has already been approved by the State Senate Judiciary Committee and the Budget and Appropriations Committee.

Bill to Do Away with Permanent Alimony Moves Forward

New Jersey's Assembly Judiciary Committee has recommended approval of a bill (A-845/971/1649) to change the State's alimony system to eliminate permanent awards. If the measure is ultimately passed and signed into law, it will provide judges, attorneys and divorced parties with guidelines for determining alimony amounts, as well as when it is appropriate to modify or discontinue alimony. Groups for and against the change to the law have, according to one of the bill's primary sponsors, Assemblyman Charles Mainor, D-Hudson, “reached a point where both sides are satisfied.”

The bill's proposed judicial guidelines call for limiting the duration of alimony based on the length of time the marriage or civil union lasted. For example, for a couple married less than five years, the guidelines suggest alimony should not exceed half the number of months of the marriage. As the length of the marriage or civil union's endurance increases ' up to 20 years ' that percentage goes up. For a marriage that lasted over 20 years, indefinite alimony could be imposed, at the judge's discretion.

Alimony also should not exceed the recipient's needs, and it is modifiable by a judge if the recipient enters into a new relationship and cohabits with that partner. In such cases, judges should consider the circumstances of the new relationship, including its stability and the financial assistance the recipient is getting from the new partner. And, significantly for divorcing parties dealing with our current economic climate, judges would have greater discretion to modify alimony awards if the payor spouse becomes underemployed or unemployed.

Suit Against Israeli Divorce Attorneys Properly Thrown Out

New Jersey's Appellate Division agrees with Bergen County, NJ, Superior Court Judge Charles Powers Jr.: The state's courts lack jurisdiction over Israeli attorneys who a New Jersey man says defamed him during divorce proceedings before Israeli civil and religious courts. The man, Sharon Ben-Haim, and his wife were visiting Israel when the wife filed for divorce there. The man then returned to New Jersey and began his own action against the wife, but the Israeli proceeding went forward. Ben-Haim was ordered by the Israeli Rabbinical court to return to that country to take part. After he did so, he claims he was denied permission to leave Israel until child support matters could be settled. (An order to return the couple's child to the United States has been issued in accordance with the terms of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, but the child remains in Israel pending appeals.)

Ben-Haim claimed that New Jersey had specific jurisdiction over the Israeli attorneys because their actions were not confined to Israel, but reached into New Jersey: They convinced a New Jersey Rabbinical court to impose community sanctions against Ben-Haim in conjunction with the divorce. New Jersey Appellate Division Judges Victor Ashrafi, Jerome St. John and George Leone were not convinced that the Bergen County judge erred in finding that the court had no personal jurisdiction over the Israeli law firm or its lawyers, however. They concluded that requiring the Israeli attorneys to defend themselves in New Jersey would “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,” because it was “undisputed that defendants neither reside nor do business in New Jersey, and that the lawyers and law firm operate in Israel without soliciting business here. The only link to New Jersey is plaintiff's residence and his action in the Family Part.”

CONNECTICUT

Connecticut Statute of Limitations Permits Civil Suit for Long-Ago Sex Abuse

A woman who was abused as a child by her mother's boyfriend but who did not bring suit for damages until nearly 25 years had passed has been awarded $2.75 million by a Willimantic, CT, jury. The abuse began when the woman was seven years old and continued until she was 14. Now, 33 years later, Dawn Andalora has received some compensation for her suffering, despite the long passage of time between the harm and the lawsuit. According to the plaintiff's attorney, Frank Bartlett Jr., of Bartlett Burns in Cheshire, CT, the victim only recently became aware that she had any legal recourse against her abuser, but Connecticut's “civil statute of limitations generally gives victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault or sexual exploitation 30 years after they reach age 18 to file a personal injury action based on the crime.”

'