Articles Posted in Divorce

Your marriage failed. You are convinced there is no saving it. You want a divorce. The problem is you have no idea where your estranged spouse is, and the law requires you inform him or her of your intentions before a divorce is granted. Does this mean you are at a dead end? Not necessarily. Courts can grant divorces under such circumstances provided certain requirements are met. If you need assistance with a divorce in Hunterdon County, the family law attorneys at The Rotolo Law Firm of Lebanon can help.

Whether your spouse has abandoned you – in itself, grounds for a divorce – or you have been separated so long that you’ve lost touch, not knowing the whereabouts of an estranged spouse is not an unheard of situation. Specific requirements to obtain a divorce under these circumstances, known as divorce by default, vary from state to state. (1) There are, however, a few basic guidelines to follow.

The first step in all divorces is to file an application, or petition, for divorce with the court in the county in which you live. Usually when you file this petition, your estranged spouse is served with notice of your intentions. When your spouse’s whereabouts are unknown, you should request an affidavit for service by publication, or “substitute service of process.” This affidavit requests the court allow you to notify your estranged spouse through publication of a legal notice in the newspaper rather than in person. By filing this affidavit, you are telling the court, under oath, that you have no knowledge of the whereabouts of your spouse. (2)

English: Kris Humphries playing with the Dallas Mavericks (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When the marriage of former NJ Nets player Kris Humphries and Kim Kardashian ended, Humphries sought an annulment over a divorce. (1) Both actions have essentially the same results – ending the union between a man and a woman – so what is the difference? If, after reading the following, you need a Hunterdon County lawyer to assist you with a similar situation, contact the family law attorneys at The Rotolo Law Firm in Lebanon, N.J.

Both divorce and annulment are legal means to end a marriage. The major difference is an annulment states the marriage never existed; it is void in the eyes of the law due to circumstances that existed as the relationship formed. Divorce, on the other hand, recognizes that problems developed during the marriage causing the relationship to disintegrate beyond repair. (2)

Marriage (Photo credit: Lel4nd)

Did you know that even after divorce you still may be entitled to receive Social Security benefits based on your ex-spouse’s contributions? It’s an area many divorced couples may overlook, but one that can be crucial to your the financial well-being.

According to an article on iVillage.com, one in five women age 65 and older relies solely on Social Security for her income. Social Security benefits are based on contributions which, in turn, are based on income. Women’s benefits, the article noted, are generally lower than men’s by an average of about 25%, partly because women spend more time out of the workforce taking care of family commitments and partly because, in many industries, women continue to earn less than men. (1) This is one reason not to overlook spousal benefits even after the marriage ends.

For most people, a global positioning system — better known as a GPS — is a useful tool that can help keep them from getting lost, navigate detours, or find the quickest route between two points. These devices can also be used to track the movements of the vehicle in which it is installed. What if the device was installed without the knowledge of the vehicle’s operator? Would that constitute an invasion of privacy? Not necessarily according to New Jersey courts.

This question came to light in connection with a recent Gloucester County divorce case. In this case, the wife suspected her husband of having an extra-marital affair. She hired a private investigator to confirm her suspicions. At some point, the investigator suggested the wife consider putting a GPS device in one of the vehicles the couple owned together. She followed that advice and information obtained through the use of that device led to the discovery of the husband in the company of another woman. The husband sued the investigator for violation of his right to privacy. (1)

A New Jersey court found in favor of the defendants and that decision was upheld by the Appeals Court just last month. In hearing the case, the court found that there was no evidence that the device tracked the husband into secluded or private areas. (2) The husband’s vehicle was tracked on public roads and was in plain sight of public view. As such, the court ruled, there could be no reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, there was no invasion of privacy and no rights were violated. (1)

While entertainment news headlines these days may be full of celebrities and politicians calling it quits on their marriages, divorce is a big step for most couples no matter what problems they may be facing. There can be any number of reasons why a couple in domestic turmoil may not want to jump into divorce – at least not just yet. Among those reasons are financial situations, religious beliefs, insurance matters and even the hope that a little time apart could help mend the relationship. While many states recognize “legal separation” as a state between marriage and divorce, New Jersey does not. (1)

In New Jersey there is a proceeding on the books known as “divorce from bed and board.” This antiquated term refers to a marital state which is between living as husband and wife and divorce. During this time, the couple would enter into a Separation – or Marital Settlement – Agreement, which does much the same as a divorce agreement without permanently ending the marriage. (1)

Under a Separation Agreement, a couple decides and agrees on a number of issues such as how assets are to be distributed between them; whether or not support payments need to be made and, if so, how much; tax issues, such as who claims who as dependents; and custody matters, including visitation schedules and child support. (1)

It used to be couples embroiled in divorce battles would hire private investigators to collect evidence against each other. In this digital era, however, more people are relying on electronic means to snag their spouses in compromising situations. The ramifications of this are unclear.

In Rochester Hills, MI, a man is facing felony charges for allegedly hacking into his ex-wife’s computer to access her emails; if found guilty, he faces a prison term of up to five years. (1)

According to reports, Leon Walker is accused of using his ex-wife’s password to access her email, where he discovered alleged infidelities. Walker’s ex-wife, Clara, claims the computer was hers and the password that protected her account was kept secret. Walker counter-claimed that, although the two were divorced, they continued to share the same home and he had access to the computer. He further contended his ex-wife did not protect her passwords but kept them in a book beside the computer. (2)

These days, many of us turn to one social networking site or another to reunite with old friends, former classmates and others from our past. While these sites have been successful in helping rebuild some lost relationships, they also have been credited recently with helping to dissolve others.

An article by Martin Di Caro posted on NJ1015.com on June 30, 2010, stated, “The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers says 81 percent of its members have faced or seen evidence in divorce cases gleaned from social networking or dating sites like Facebook, Myspace, or match.com.” (1)

An earlier article by Sue Epstein written for The Star Ledger (March 21, 2010) cited the case of a divorced New Jersey couple who were still trying to work out custody of their teenager. During this time, the girl posted a photo on Facebook of her and her friends partying. The teen’s mother used the photo to support her argument that the father was “too permissive.” (2)

Appellant, Carol J. Broach, suffered a stroke in 2005. After she suffered this stroker her son, William S. Broach, was appointed as her guardian. As a result of the stroke appellant was left mentally incompetent. She is unable to testify intelligently or express her wishes. Acting in his capacity as guardian, William S. Broach filed a complaint for divorce on his mother’s behalf in January 2006. Broach v. Broach, 2008 WL 3582809 (Ohio App. 2 Dist).

The Trial court held a competency hearing and found the appellant “is unable to form the requisite intent to maintain a divorce action.” Id. The trial court rejected the argument that the guardian could continue the action on his mother’s behalf. The trial court then dismissed the complaint due to the Appellant’s incompetency.

The only contest issue on appeal was that the trial court erred in ruling the guardian could not bring this action on her behalf. In support of her argument appellant cited State ex rel. Broer v. Alexander (1963), 175 Ohio St. 24, 23 O.O.2d 298, 190 N.E.2d 923, and Heskett v. Heskett (Nov 25, 1991), Champaign App. N. 91-CA-05, 1991 WL 256136. In Broer, the court held that “[t]he appointment of a guardian for a mentally incompetent person will not abate a divorce action instituted prior to the incompetency.” Broer, at paragraph one of the syllabus. In Heskett, the court that decided this case addressed a similar situation involving a party who was competent when he filed for divorce but who became incompetent while the action was pending. The court cited Broer and held that a guardian could continue that action on behalf of the incompetent party.

Continue reading ›

On April 10, 2007, Gretchen Bonaduce filed for divorce from former “Partridge Family” child star, and now radio and TV host, Dante Daniel (“Danny”) Bonaduce after 17 years of marriage, citing irreconcilable differences.

According to the divorce papers, Gretchen is seeking legal and physical custody of their 6-year old son, Count Dante Jean-Michael V. and 12-year old daughter, Countess Isabella Michaela of the marriage, with visitation to Danny.

Continue reading ›

On May 4, 2007, Evanka Buttafuoco filed a divorce petition against Joey Buttafuoco citing “irreconcilable differences”. Evanka listed the couple’s assets to be “consumer debt only”.

When asked about his divorce, Mr. Buttafuoco told The Post “All I can say is two words: I’m devastated. That’s all I can say. I’m very sad.”

Joey and Evanka were married on March 5, 2007. No children are shared by the couple.

Continue reading ›