Michael J. Thieme v. Bernice F. Aucoin-Thieme (A-51-15

 Michael J. Thieme v. Bernice F. Aucoin-Thieme 

(A-51-15; 076683) 

N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(h) authorizes the equitable distribution of Thieme’s Closing Bonus only to the extent that the compensation was earned during the parties’ marriage because, under that statute, the property to be divided is that which was earned, or otherwise acquired, during a marriage or civil union. The Court holds, however, that the extraordinary circumstances of this case warrant the imposition of a constructive trust as a remedy for Aucoin-Thieme’s claim of unjust enrichment and that Aucoin-Thieme is entitled to a percentage of the portion of the Closing Bonus earned during the parties’ cohabitation. 

DONNA SLAWINSKI VS. MARY E. NICHOLAS A-0710-15T1

DONNA SLAWINSKI VS. MARY E. NICHOLAS
          A-0710-15T1

Defendant challenges the Family Part's exercise of continuing exclusive jurisdiction, implicating provisions of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (the Act), now codified at N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.124 to - 30.201. Defendant maintains orders modifying child support must be vacated because she relocated to North Carolina, depriving New Jersey of jurisdiction.
The Act as recently amended, includes provisions regarding a New Jersey tribunal's authority to modify a controlling child support order when parents and child no longer reside in the state. See L. 2016, c. 1, eff. April 1, 2016. In this matter, we conclude the facts support the Family Part's authority to exercise continuing exclusive jurisdiction as the prior version

of the Act, now repealed, was in effect and permitted the modification of the previously issued child support order. Were the current Act applied, under these facts New Jersey would also have jurisdiction. However, we are compelled to observe the amendments altered the foundations when individuals and the child leave New Jersey, possibly leaving a jurisdictional gap if there is no agreement among the parties as was shown here. 

ANIL K. LALL VS. MONISHA SHIVANI

ANIL K. LALL VS. MONISHA SHIVANI

This appeal involves a parent's effort terminate a grandparent's visitation, which had been allowed pursuant to a consent order. We hold that a parent's rights, which the Court recognized in Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84, 114-15 (2003), do not empower a parent to terminate or modify a consent order unilaterally. Rather, a request to modify or terminate visitation by consent order must be considered in accordance with the Lepis framework. That is, a parent must make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances as would warrant relief. If the parent vaults that threshold, the parent bears the burden to show the modification or termination would not cause harm to the child. 

J.S. VS. D.S. A-5742-14T2

J.S. VS. D.S.
          A-5742-14T2

Defendant appealed a domestic violence final restraining order (FRO), claiming it was void upon entry – despite the parties' settlement of matrimonial issues that included defendant's consent to the FRO – because the judge did not find an act of domestic violence had occurred. A few days before the scheduled date for oral argument in this court, the parties stipulated to a dismissal of the appeal that would allow for the perpetuation of the FRO. Notwithstanding their agreement, the court exercised its discretion, pursuant to Rule 2:8-2, and determined that the interests of justice required a disposition of the appeal's merits; the court vacated the FRO due to the lack of a finding of domestic violence, reinstated the TRO, and remanded for a final hearing.