Risa A. Kleiner, Esq.

July 27, 2010

Every divorce participant eventually hears the letters C-I-S.  The letter stand for the words “Case Information Statement.”  This is a lengthy financial disclosure document which is required by the court in every litigated divorce.  When completed (by you, the litigant), the CIS will provide details of your family income, expenses, assets and debts.  And, it will be signed by you over a statement in which you certify to the truth and accuracy of the information that you have provided.

Is the CIS important? 

The short answer is “yes.”  The CIS gives an overview of the “marital lifestyle” and is the basis for determining alimony, child support and distribution of assets and debts.  If the information is incomplete or inaccurate, one or both parties may wind up with less than their appropriate share of the assets and less or more support than is appropriate.

Do you have to prepare a CIS if you proceed through a Collaborative Divorce or if your case is mediated?  W

hile the court may not require that a CIS be filed when the issues are settled before the Complaint for Divorce is filed, the lack of a CIS can be very detrimental to any future modifications of support.  If there is no document to reflect the marital lifestyle at the time of the divorce, providing support for upward or downward modifications of support in the future can be extremely difficult.  The original CIS and an updated CIS are required by the court, should the parties be unable to agree on them in some form of ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution – e.g. mediation or collaborative divorce).

Bottom line:  it’s worth it to spend the time to prepare an accurate and complete CIS at the onset of any divorce.  In the long run, it will save time, money and aggravation — and possibly save you from an unjust outcome.

For more information, contact our office at 609.951.2222 or email to Risa@rkleinerlaw.com

July 14, 2010

Recently, the Appellate Division turned down an appellant’s request to overturn a trial court order dismissing his request to reduce his support obligations.  The reason?  He framed his request badly – put it in his Certification instead of in his Notice of Motion.  Didn’t provide adequate documentation.  He was Pro se – how was he to know?  Too bad, said the court.  If you want to ask the court for help, you’d better submit everything in proper form and provide all appropriate supporting documents.

This is not intended as a criticism of an overburdened court.  Courts have rules for a reason and if lawyers have to follow the rules, so do litigants who are unrepresented by counsel.  But compare this process to mediation or collaborative law where requests for information are made informally and the parties are given an adequate opportunity to submit their supporting materials and discuss their positions.  

The litigant in the recent case might not prevail in mediation or in a collaborative divorce, but the emphasis would be where it belongs — on the substance of his request.   Support reductions, like the original establishment of support obligations, can be effectively mediated or resolved through the collaborative divorce process.  And everyone has the opportunity to be heard.

Contact Risa A. Kleiner, Esq. at 609.951.2222 or via email at risa@rkleinerlaw.com for more information about mediation and collaborative divorce.

August 28, 2009

It should come as no surprise that noncustodial parents are finding it harder to meet their child support obligations.  Loss of employment, faltering businesses, the need to accept lower paying jobs or part-time work — all are contributing factors.  But the custodial parent still needs to feed and clothe the children, take them to the doctor and pay their expenses.  How are couples resolving this dilemma?

Court applications seeking a reduction in support are increasing.  Nearly 40% of the matrimonial attorneys surveyed reported an increase in these applications.  Some applicants seek a reduction because their current net income isn’t even enough to cover their support obligations.  The immediate past president of the National Council of Juvenile and Fmaily Court Judges has been quoted as saying that the courts are generally sympathetic to these applicants, but that judges still have to focus on the children’s needs – and this could mean a denial of a request to reduce child support.

Many couples, struggling with their finances, are choosing not to go to court at all.  Rather, they are determined to try to work out a reasonable compromise that they can both live with.  In an Associated Press article published by The Washington Post on August 27, 2009, several custodial and non-custodial parents report on the benefits of cooperation.  Some have chosen to mediate their problem with the assistance of a trained family mediator rather than incur the expense of court and risk an unsatisfactory outcome.  Parties who have agreed to reductions are, in some cases, finding that their ex-spouse is more co-operative in other ways, including taking over more child-related responsibilities and spending more time with the children.

Maybe poor economic times will have some benefit after all.

For more information on mediation, check the Mediation section of this website and other related internet sites, such as www.Mediate.com.

August 13, 2009

In a published opinion, The Honorable Robert J. Mega, sitting in the Chancery Division, Family Part in Union County, held that New Jersey courts retain “continuing exclusive jurisdiction” to modify a spousal support order that was established in New Jersey.   The unusual issue decided in Pek v. Prots, FM-20-00286-04, arose because the parties parties had both moved out of New Jersey after the divorce.  Their Judgment of Divorce provided that Ohio should exercise all future jurisdiction of issues arising after the divorce.

Despite their agreement — and the fact that they no longer reside in New Jersey — the court found that Federal Law (specifically the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), overrides their contractual selection of jurisdiction as to the issue of modification of alimony, but not child support.  UIFSA is codified in New Jersey at N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.65 to 123. 

The issue arose after plaintiff filed a motion to modify child support and alimony in Ohio where his former wife and the children reside.  The Ohio court agreed to exercise jurisdiction over the child support issue, but not over spousal support.  The New Jersey court agreed, holding that, although forum selection clauses are generally enforceable in this State, enforcing the parties’ choice of jurisdiction over alimony could avoid potential confusion among jurisdictions which might result in a litigant having no forum whatsoever in which to litigate his claim.

Lesson to be learned:  Since a significant amount of litigation involves post-judgment issues, it is critical that parties be well-informed of the law before entering into a Settlement Agreement which is to be incorporated into their Judgment of Divorce.   

More important lesson to be learned.  If the parties had sought mediation to resolve the modification requests made by plaintiff in this case, the time and expense of duplicate litigation in NJ and Ohio could have been avoided.