Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this marital dissolution case, holding that a trial court need not follow a rigid, technical formula in dividing the marital estate so long as the court expressly considers all marital property and offers sufficient justification to rebut the presumptive equal division.In its final decree, the trial court granted Wife's request for spousal maintenance and awarded Wife fifty-five percent of the "net marital estate." On appeal, both Husband and Wife disputed the trial court's award of spousal maintenance and the distribution of the marital estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the trial court's award of spousal maintenance; and (2) there was no error in the court's division of marital property. View "Roetter v. Roetter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Hebah Abdelqader appealed an order following a bifurcated trial wherein the superior court denied Hebah’s request for a restraining order against her ex-husband, Abdo Abraham, and granted joint physical custody of the couple’s children, A.A. and G.A. Hebah claimed the court made multiple errors when determining she had not met her burden of proving domestic violence. In addition, Hebah claimed the court erred in failing to articulate, on the record or in writing, the reasons it found the presumption under Family Code section 3044 had been rebutted. In the unpublished portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hebah’s request for a restraining order. However, in the published portion of the opinion, the Court agreed the trial court erred in failing to state the reasons, on the record or in writing, it found the presumption under section 3044 had been rebutted. As such, the judgment was reversed as to that issue only and the matter remanded for further consideration. View "Abdelqader v. Abraham" on Justia Law

This case was one of many "disagreements" about the control of the multi-million-dollar estate of Thomas Tedesco. Plaintiff-respondent Laura White was one of Thomas’s three biological daughters and a cotrustee of his living trust. Defendant-appellant Debra Wear (aka Debbie Basara Wear) was one of Thomas’s stepdaughters. In 2013, Thomas suffered serious health issues, which resulted in significant cognitive impairment, leaving him susceptible to being unduly influenced by anyone close to him. Gloria Tedesco, Thomas’s second wife, began denying White and her sisters access to their father, causing him to believe that they were stealing from him. Wear assisted Gloria, her mother, in unduly influencing Thomas via contacting, or facilitating access to, attorneys in order to change Thomas’s estate plan to disinherit his biological family in favor of Gloria and her family. In 2015, a permanent conservator of Thomas’s estate was appointed. Despite the existence of the conservatorship, Wear continued to assist Gloria in taking actions to unduly influence Thomas to change his 30-plus-year estate plan. Consequently, upon White’s petition, the superior court issued an elder abuse restraining order (EARO), restraining Wear for three years from, among other things, financially abusing Thomas, contacting him (either directly or indirectly), facilitating any change to his estate plan, coming within 100 yards of him, and possessing any guns, other firearms, and ammunition. Wear contended the EARO was void because: (1) the judge was disqualified; and (2) he violated due process by substantially amending the allegations in the petition and prohibiting her from possessing firearms and ammunition. She further claimed the petition failed to state a cause of action for elder financial abuse. The Court of Appeal agreed the court erred in including a firearms and ammunition restriction in the EARO and directed the trial court to strike it. Otherwise, the Court affirmed. View "White v. Wear" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kathleen Moynihan and defendant Edward Lynch were involved in a long-term “marital-style relationship.” Anticipating the potential dissolution of that relationship, they signed and notarized a written agreement, without the assistance of counsel, that finalized the financial obligations each owed to the other. The issue this case presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court's review was the validity of that palimony agreement. In 2015, the parties parted ways, and Lynch refused to abide by their written agreement. Moynihan filed a complaint seeking enforcement of the written agreement and an alleged oral palimony agreement that she claimed the parties had entered before the Legislature in 2010 amended N.J.S.A. 25:1-5 to include subparagraph (h), which mandated that palimony agreements be reduced to writing and “made with the independent advice of counsel.” She challenged N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) on constitutional grounds and urged enforcement as a typical contract; alternatively, she sought enforcement of the agreement on equitable grounds. Lynch denied the existence of an oral palimony agreement and asserted that the written agreement was unenforceable because the parties did not receive the independent advice of counsel before entering it. The Supreme Court concluded the palimony agreement, as written and signed, without the attorney review requirement, was enforceable. That portion of N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), which imposed an attorney-review requirement to enforce a palimony agreement, contravenes Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. The Court concluded the parties did not enter an oral palimony agreement. View "Moynihan v. Lynch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court in this parental rights termination case, holding that the juvenile court applied the incorrect definition of "normal home" in Ariz. Rev. Stat. 8-533(B) in terminating the parental interest of Father to his child.The juvenile court found H.B. and her half-siblings dependent as to Mother and their respective fathers. As to Father, the court found that DCS had proved termination pursuant to the length-of-sentence ground listed 8-533(B)(4) and that termination was in H.B.'s best interests. Specifically, the court concluded that Father's incarceration had and would continue to deprive H.B. of a normal home for a period of years, thus demonstrating the legnth-of-sentence ground for termination. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the juvenile court erred by not considering whether a permanent guardianship could provide H.B. with a "normal home" while Father maintained his parental rights; and (2) remand was necessary for consideration of Father's past and ongoing efforts to parent H.B. from prison and their impact on H.B.'s interest in a stable home life in the court's best interests analysis. View "Timothy B. v. Department of Child Safety" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this divorce proceeding, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff brought this divorce action, and the the trial court declared a mistrial. After a second trial Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court prejudiced Plaintiff's credibility and displayed judicial bias and improperly awarded Defendant $65,000 in legal fees and $5000 in sanctions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the doctrine of plain error did not require reversal in this case; and (2) the trial court properly awarded Defendant attorney's fees and sanctions. View "Ponns Cohen v. Cohen" on Justia Law

In the published portion of this opinion, the Court of Appeal held that in considering whether a spousal support agreement executed between 1986 and 2002 is enforceable, the court is not limited to a determination under Family Code section 1615, subdivision (a)(2) whether the agreement was unconscionable when executed. Rather, the court retains the power under Family Code section 1612, subdivision (a)(7) to shape public policy regarding premarital spousal support agreements to the extent not inconsistent with Legislative declarations of such policy, and to declare that a premarital spousal support agreement is unenforceable as against public policy solely because it is unconscionable at the time of enforcement.The court rejected all challenges to the trial court's rulings, except the court corrected an arithmetical error in the trial court's attorney fee award, and modified the order to direct husband to pay wife $870,000. The court also vacated the trial court's ruling on wife's request for order of March 14, 2014 seeking to modify the temporary spousal support order, and remanded for the trial court to determine the amount of pendente lite spousal support from the date of wife's request. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Zucker v. Zucker" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed with instructions the jurisdictional and dispositional orders concerning A.C. However, the court concluded that, under the facts of this case, DCFS's failure to ask extended family members about potential Indian ancestry was prejudicial, and thus the court remanded the matter with directions for the juvenile court to order DCFS to comply with Welf. & Inst. Code, section 224.2. In this case, the record reveals readily obtainable information that was likely to bear meaningfully on whether A.C. was an Indian child. The court could not assume that the parents' mere denial of Indian ancestry on a form was sufficient to dispel prejudice from DCFS's failure to ask A.C.'s extended family members about potential Indian ancestry. View "In re A.C." on Justia Law

A maternal aunt and uncle sought to adopt a child over the father’s objection; after finding that the father’s consent was required, the superior court dismissed the adoption petition. The aunt and uncle contended the superior court erred by finding that: (1) the father had justifiable cause for his failure to communicate with the child for one year or more; (2) the father did not abandon the child for six months or more; and (3) the father did not fail to support the child for one year or more. The Alaska Supreme Court found the superior court did not err in its decision; judgment was therefore affirmed. View "In the Matter of the Adoption of J. R. S." on Justia Law

A divorcing couple’s property settlement agreement required the husband to pay the wife $1,200 per month from the non-disability portion of the husband’s military retirement. The agreement also provided that if the husband took any action that reduced the wife’s share of this payment, the husband would directly pay the wife so as to indemnify her against the reduction. After the husband’s retirement was converted to disability pay and the wife stopped receiving her monthly payment, she moved to enforce the settlement agreement’s indemnity provision. The superior court initially concluded that the indemnity provision was unenforceable because it violated federal law. But when the wife then moved to set the settlement agreement aside, the court decided to enforce the indemnity provision and ordered the former husband to make the monthly $1,200 payment and to pay arrears. To this, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed, holding that federal law did not preclude enforcing one spouse’s promise to pay another a sum of money each month even if the source of the money was military disability pay. View "Jones v. Jones" on Justia Law