Filter This View

  • Settineri v. Settineri

    Publication Date: 2018-04-13
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Appellate Division
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: A-0748-15T2

    Defendant appealed provisions of orders entered in a post-judgment divorce proceeding alleging that it was in error to appoint a receiver to take control over a family trust, that plaintiff is entitled to transfers made from the trust to defendant, that the trial judge failed to address his request that alimony be terminated, that he was improperly found in contempt of a court order and an order that compelled the LLC to turn over a percentage of money to the receiver.

  • Chaffee v. Cianciara

    Publication Date: 2018-04-13
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Appellate Division
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: A-0004-16T3

    Plaintiff appealed from the trial court's order granting defendant's request for reduction in his alimony obligation after being laid off, applied retroactively to the date defendant secured a new, lesser-paying job, and granting defendant's motion for a credit for the alimony he overpaid prior to the reduction against funds he owed plaintiff from appropriating her portion of the parties' 401(k) fund.

  • S.B.P. v. D.J.P.

    Publication Date: 2018-04-12
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Appellate Division
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: A-0343-16T4

    Defendant appealed the award of counsel fees to plaintiff.

  • Landers v. Landers

    Publication Date: 2018-04-12
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Appellate Division
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: A-1073-16T1

    Plaintiff appealed the reduction of her alimony from $1000 to $350 per month.

  • Busch v. Busch

    Publication Date: 2018-04-12
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Appellate Division
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: A-3545-16T4

    Defendant appealed from the order requiring plaintiff to reimburse defendant in monthly installments for pre-divorce credit card debt.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Infobeans cogito test

    Authors: Stephen Fishman

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • J.L. v. E.A.J.

    Publication Date: 2018-04-06
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Appellate Division
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: A-2421-16T1

    Defendant appealed the FRO entered against him.

  • T.M. v. R.M.

    Publication Date: 2018-04-05
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Appellate Division
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: A-4724-16T3

    Plaintiff appealed from the denial of his motion to modify alimony and child support.

  • Nam v. Kim

    Publication Date: 2018-04-04
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Appellate Division
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: A-0025-16T1

    Plaintiff appealed from the final judgment of divorce entered following a bench trial.

  • In the Interest of T.C., a juvenile

    Publication Date: 2018-04-04
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Appellate Division
    Judge: Judge Koblitz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: A-1784-16T1

    Defendant appealed from his adjudication of delinquency and imposition of a two-year probationary term conditioned on 30 days' incarceration in the county juvenile detention center followed by 30 days' electronic monitoring.

  • B.T. v. S.J.L.

    Publication Date: 2018-04-04
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Appellate Division
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: A-2831-16T3

    Defendant appealed the entry of a FRO against him, after the trial court found that defendant committed the predicate act of harassment and that plaintiff needed protection from future acts of harassment.