FAMILY LAW - SPOUSAL SUPPORT - CHILD SUPPORT

20-25256 Morales v. Morales, App. Div. (per curiam) (13 pp.) Defendant appeals from two provisions of the Family Part's post-judgment order granting retroactive alimony and child support to his former wife, plaintiff, and requiring defendant to distribute additional funds from his 401K retirement account to plaintiff. Here, defendant's alimony and child support payments were not to commence until the marital residence was sold. In the interim, he was responsible for most expenses associated with the marital residence. That obligation arguably constituted support and was not subject to the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code after Defendant filed bankruptcy. However, the distribution of defendant's 401K is not in the same category, and clearly implicated issues of equitable distribution, not spousal or child support. Thus, the court lacked jurisdiction to modify equitable distribution of the asset because the bankruptcy stay was in place at the time.

FAMILY LAW - ALIMONY - CHILD SUPPORT 

20-2-5077 Villone v. Villone, App. Div. (per curiam) (12 pp.) Plaintiff, a former professional baseball player, appeals the denial of his application for modification of alimony and child support. Finding that the parties had agreed in their marital settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the judgment of divorce, to criteria to be applied for modifications of the support obligation based on changes in plaintiff's income or employment, and to certain triggers that, when met, would constitute the equivalent of a changed circumstances that would allow the court to consider modification without the necessity of the moving party showing additional changed circumstances, and that plaintiff has satisfied two of those triggers and the good cause standard applicable to his request for discovery and a plenary hearing, the panel reverses the denial of his request for discovery and a plenary hearing. 

FAMILY LAW - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

20-2-4202 E.E. v. J.M.E., App. Div. (per curiam) (20 pp.) Defendant appeals from a final restraining order obtained by his estranged wife. In determining to enter the restraining order, the judge found that defendant committed a predicate act of harassment by removing and keeping the parties' child in an unknown location and sending an email with the purpose to annoy and alarm plaintiff. While the court found that the incident was ambiguous standing alone, it qualified as harassment when viewed in light of prior acts of domestic violence. The court found that defendant's action went beyond "domestic contretemps." The appellate panel affirms, finding no error in the court's determination that defendant committed a predicate act of domestic violence and a final restraining order was needed to protect defendant from future acts of domestic violence.
 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Recent Appellate Division decision; EMB v. RFB, the court ruled that purported acts of theft by a son (56 years old) against his mother (88 years old) as well as the statement calling his mother, "a senile old b-tch" did not constitute an act of harassment within the meaning of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The Court noted that theft is not one of the predicate offenses included under the act. Moreover, to qualify as an act of domestic violence, the proofs would have to demonstrate that the thefts were committed with the purpose to alarm or seriously annoy the victim. Those proofs were lacking in this case. In terms of the "old b-tch" comment, the evidence did not support the requirement that the offending remark be made with a purpose to harass the victim as opposed to simply expressing the opinion of the speaker.