Court Enunciates New Test for Tolling Child Sex Abuse Statute of Limitations
By Michael Booth
New Jersey Law Journal
New York Times
By: Julie Bosman
The same story echoed a dozen times through Room E8 of Manhattan Family Court in a single day: fathers, pinched by the recession, pleading for a reduction in child support.
A salesman at Saks Fifth Avenue who is estranged from his teenage daughter said he feared he would be included in the next round of layoffs expected at his store.
A man who had been laid off from a factory said he managed to find work at Mets games, but for less pay, $9 an hour. Another man, on the verge of eviction, begged for a break from his $315 monthly payments.
“Last week was my child’s birthday, and I couldn’t get him a present,” he said, burying his head in his hands. “This is killing me.”
Since January, Family Court in New York has been filled with urgent requests like these, alarming judges and overwhelming calendars with what are known as modification cases.
Judges may invoke specific performance remedy, appeals panel says
By Mary Pat Gallagher
New Jersey Law Journal
March 10, 2009
When couples break up, judges can decide who gets custody of pets based on their unique sentimental value, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday, setting a precedent in the state.
The published opinion in Houseman v. Dare, A-2415-07, reverses a trial court’s finding that pets differ from personal property like heirlooms, family treasures and works of art and therefore that the equitable remedy of specific performance is not available.
Appellate Division Judges Jane Grall, Stephen Skillman and Ronald Graves found that determination erroneous as a matter of law and remanded for further proceedings.
“There is no reason for a court of equity to be more wary in resolving competing claims for possession of a pet, based on one party’s sincere affection for and attachment to it than in resolving competing claims based on one party’s sincere sentiment for an inanimate object based on a relationship with the donor,” Grall wrote.
The case arose out of the broken engagement of Doreen Houseman and Eric Dane. The couple started dating in 1993, bought a house together in Williamstown in 1999 and became engaged in 2000. In 2003, they paid $1,500 for a pug named Dexter.
Dane broke off the engagement in May 2006 and when Houseman moved out two months later, she took Dexter with her, along with what Grall described as his “paraphernalia.” After that, Dexter lived with Houseman, who allowed Dane to take the dog for visits.
In late February 2007, Houseman went on vacation and left Dexter with Dane, but he refused to surrender the dog when she returned on March 4.
Thorpe v. Wiggan, 405 N.J. Super. 68, (2009).
The doctrine of parental immunity has always protected parents from judicial intervention in normal child rearing decisions. The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division recently reexamined this doctrine in Thorpe v. Wiggan. This matter involves the tragic death of a four year-old child, Joseph Wiggan, who burned to death while a passenger in a car driven by his father. This is a negligence acting being brought by the child’s mother against defendant for failing to remove his son from the car before the fire started. The plaintiff appealed the order dismissing her complaint, and the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
There are two versions of the facts. The first was relayed by defendant to a state police detective via telephone. In this version, he was driving on Route 78 when he noticed that his car was emitting smoke. He then heard “2 bangs,” & he smelled the smoke also, so he pulled over into the shoulder. He got out of the vehicle checked around and so the car was full of smoke. His child was in the back seat, but he was unable to get him out. He wound up in the hospital. He got burned.
The second version of the events, the defendant claims he heard the same “2 bangs,” and he believed a tire blew up. The care then “blew up in flames.” He pulled the car to the shoulder, ran into the bushes and rolled to put the fire out that was on him. Plaintiff conceded that she had no claim against defendant for his second version of the events. Plaintiffs only claim lies under the State Police version.
By Michael Booth
New Jersey Law Journal
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday approved bipartisan-sponsored legislation that would require all palimony agreements to be in writing and signed in order to be enforceable.
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.
Court holds that cohabitation is not essential for an award
By Edward S. Snyder, 193 N.J.L.J.652
The law of palimony has evolved and expanded over the last three decades and the Supreme Court of New Jersey has been active in defining its parameters. During the 2007-08 term the court once again delved into this area of family law by deciding Devaney v. L’Esperance, 195 N.J. 247 (2008). holding that cohabitation is not essential for an award of palimony, however declaring that it is just one of several factors to be considered by a trial court
Genesis of the Palimony Claim in New Jersey
Palimony is essentially “alimony” where the parties were never married. The true definition of palimony, however, can be described “in general terms [a]s a claim for support between unmarried persons.” Devaney, supra, 195 N.J. 247 at 16.
“[A]ny party is free to retire, take a vow of poverty, write poetry, or hawk roses in an airport, if he or she sees fit. The only limit is discontinuance of the financial aid the former spouse requires. The reason for this is that the duty of self-fulfillment must give way to the pre-existing duty which runs between spouses who have been in a marriage which has failed.” Deegan v. Deegan, 254 N.J. Super. 350, 358-59.
A three-judge Appellate Division panel recently ruled out binding, nonappealable arbitration as a way to settle custody and parenting time disputes. Arbitration is a favored remedy for settling disputes, but parties can’t bargain away the court’s obligation under the principle of parens patriae to ensure the best interests of children, the appeals court said.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled last month that “[c]ohabitation is not an essential requirement for a cause of action for palimony, but a marital-type relationship is required.” In Devaney V. L’Esperance, Not Reported A.2d., 2008 WL 2491976 (NJ). The Court by a 6-1 majority broke away from the precedent set by almost every state court by saying a Plaintiff need only prove that there was a “marital-type relationship.” The Court found that no such relationship existed in this case.
New Jersey Family Law Blog