Arbitration Award Stands Even Though One Of The Arbitrators Was Later Convicted Of Crime

  by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Divorce decree (pd)Arbitration awards are, by design, difficult to vacate. But what happens when one of the arbitrators who entered the award is later convicted of a crime related, at least to some extent, to an issue in the arbitration. In Litton v. Litton, the Appellate Division addressed this interesting but (hopefully) uncommon occurrence.

In Litton, plaintiff and defendant were married in 1982 and had one child. In 2008, the Family Part entered a judgment of divorce and ordered them to share joint custody of their son. They were also directed to proceed to arbitration before a rabbinical panel, or Beth Din, which they did. The panel, which was comprised of three rabbis, entered an award requiring the husband to pay the wife $5,000 per month until he gave her a Get. (As the Appellate Division explained, a Get is a "written document a husband must obtain and deliver to his wife when entering into a divorce. Without a Get, a wife cannot remarry under Jewish law.") Once the wife received the Get, the husband's monthly support obligation would be reduced to $3,500. The husband was also ordered to pay $20,0250 in arrears, $100,000 in the wife's legal fees, and a fine of $250,000 for "his refusal to disclose information about the couple's joint funds."

Several months later, the wife moved to enforce the award and, apparently, have the husband jailed for not complying with it. The Family Part denied the request and found that the husband was not capable of complying with the support order.

Four years later, the Family Part reduced the husband's support obligation from $5,000 per month to $23 per week. Around the same time, in a "wholly unrelated matter," one of the arbitrators on the panel was charged with, and apparently later convicted  of, "criminal conspiracy to threaten and coerce Jewish husbands to give Gets to their wives."  The husband moved to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that, in light of these charges against one of the rabbis on the panel, "the award was the product of corruption." The trial court denied the motion, holding that there was no causal connection between the arbitration in 2008 and the charges against the rabbi five years later, and that there were two other rabbis on the panel who were not charged as part of the conspiracy. The husband appealed.

Continue reading “Arbitration Award Stands Even Though One Of The Arbitrators Was Later Convicted Of Crime”

“This Eight Dollar Dish Will Cost You A Thousand Dollars In Phone Calls To The Legal Firm Of That’s Mine, This Is Yours . . . .”

 by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

One of my favorite scenes from "When Harry Met Sally" occurs when the late, great Bruno Kirby, and the late, great Carrie Fisher, whose characters are just moving in together, are arguing about a wagon wheel table that Kirby's character wants to put in their apartment. Then they ask Billy Crystal's character for his opinion about the table. Big mistake. Crystal had just run into his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. After a few seconds, Crystal launches into a rant about how things may be wonderful for Kirby and Fisher now, but a few years from now they will break up and will spend hours and hours, and thousands of dollars fighting over a "stupid, wagon wheel, Roy Rogers, garage sale coffee table."  

I was reminded of this scene when I read the Appellate Division's decision in Maciejczyk v. Maciejczyk. Instead of a wagon wheel coffee table, however, the parties in that case were fighting over a water filtration system. Regardless, they proved Crystal's point.

 

Continue reading ““This Eight Dollar Dish Will Cost You A Thousand Dollars In Phone Calls To The Legal Firm Of That’s Mine, This Is Yours . . . .””

Field of Bad Dreams?

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Field of Dreams (PD)
In Field of Dreams, James Earl Jones's character makes a famous speech about baseball being "the one constant through all the years." While "America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers," and has been "erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again . . . baseball has marked the time." In D.W. v. L.W., the Law Division started its opinion with a less poetic, but more ominous baseball-related statement: "This case involves separated parents, young children, and Little League baseball." If you have been to more than a few youth sporting events, you can probably guess what was at issue in the case. Nonetheless, the court's opinion is a good read as it is part homage to little league baseball and part framework for how parents should (and should not) behave at youth sporting events.

In D.W., a husband and wife's child played in a "coach-pitch league." Although they were separated, they agreed that they could both attend the games as long as the husband stayed at least 50 feet from the wife. A few months later, the husband filed a follow-up motion to attend their son's football games. The wife opposed the motion and further asked the court to ban the husband from continuing to attend their son's baseball games because he had "acted inappropriately at the baseball field, in a publicly embarrassing manner, by making negative and demeaning comments about the team coach's baseball-related decisions, within earshot of the coach's wife." She further claimed that the couple's daughter later started repeating the husband's comments, and that the husband had posted similar commentary about the coach on Facebook. The husband denied that he acted inappropriately, and further claimed that it was his wife "who, at least previously, did not approve of the coach's baseball-related abilities." (As an aside, how many "baseball-related decisions" does a coach really make in a 7-year-old's coach-pitch game?)

The court began its opinion by emphasizing the importance of youth sports in America. More than 40 years ago, the Appellate Division recognized that little league baseball was a "piece of public Americana." It has been almost universally praised as a "social and cultural tool for positive childhood development and inclusion." According to the court, the benefits of little league baseball go beyond "simply teaching children to hit, field and catch," but include developing "good citizenship, sportsmanship, and maturity of character." In fact, the court took judicial notice that "the results of particular Little League games are not nearly as significant as the underlying goal of developing a child's ongoing personal character in a positive fashion."

 

Continue reading “Field of Bad Dreams?”

Married in 1967, Divorced in 1982, Sued for 47 Years of Alimony in 2014

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Divorce (pd)It seems like the plot of a Lifetime movie, but it is not (or, at least, not yet). Plaintiff and defendant marry in 1967 in Vietnam. In 1975, plaintiff flees Vietnam because of the "impending communist takeover." He ends up in New Jersey where, in 1981 he files for divorce. The judgment of divorce is entered in 1982, after which plaintiff re-marries. In 2004, defendant immigrates to the United States and ten years later seeks to vacate the divorce and collect alimony and equitable distribution "based on a 47 year marriage." These are the basic facts in a recent unpublished Appellate Division decision, Chau v. Khon.  

Here are the relevant missing details. After coming to America in 1975, plaintiff sent letters to defendant, "including a signed application for family reunification." Plaintiff's brother also sent letters to defendant. These letters were sent between 1975 and 1981, but defendant never responded. Plaintiff filed for divorce in 1981, asserting a separation of more than 18 consecutive months as the basis for the divorce. Because he had not heard from his wife in six years, and did not know here whereabouts, he sought permission to serve her by publication. The court agreed, and following publication, a judgment of divorce was entered.

Plaintiff remarried and the couple had a son. Plaintiff also had two daughters from his first marriage. In 1993, the daughters came to live with their father and his new wife. In 1996, plaintiff and his son even visited Vietnam and met with defendant. In 2004, defendant immigrated to the United States. She claims that she learned about the divorce in 2006 when she obtained copies of the original complaint and judgment of divorce. Nonetheless, she waited until 2014 to (1) move to vacate the original divorce and (2) file her own complaint for divorce, seeking alimony and equitable distribution going back to the original 1967 wedding date. She also filed lis pendens on three properties, only one of which was owned by plaintiff (the other two were owned by his son). Defendant claimed that she waited ten years to file the complaint because it took her that long to "obtain all of the papers they needed to prove that plaintiff knew where she was living in 1981 and 1982 so she could challenge his fraudulent divorce from her." This was important to her because, among other arguments, defendant claimed that plaintiff's assertion that he did not know her whereabouts when he filed the complaint for divorce was a fraud on the court.

Plaintiff opposed the motion to vacate the divorce and cross moved to discharge the lis pendens and for an award of attorney's fees. The trial court denied defendant's motion and granted plaintiff's motion (except the request for fees). The trial court explained that defendant "admitted that she knew of the divorce in 2006 , but failed to act diligently by waiting until 2014 to file her motion to vacate the divorce."  It also held that defendant failed to "address[] how her motion and proposed new divorce complaint would affect plaintiff's second wife, who had been married to plaintiff for over thirty years." Defendant appealed.

Continue reading “Married in 1967, Divorced in 1982, Sued for 47 Years of Alimony in 2014”

In Case You Ever Find Yourself Fighting With Your Wife Over Your Ferraris . . .

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Ferrari (pd)Right. I never do either. But if you do (or think you might in the future) then you might want to know about Durrani v. Wide World of Cars. In that case, plaintiff sued a car dealership and her ex-husband's former lawyers for delivering two Ferraris to her ex-husband, allegedly in violation of an order entered in their divorce action.

As the trial court described it, when plaintiff and her ex-husband were married, they lived an "extravagant lifestyle." Among other things,  they owned "twenty-five luxury cars worth approximately one million dollars, boats and properties." Of these assets, however, plaintiff was only on the title of two cars (and not the Ferraris). Nonetheless, during their divorce proceeding, plaintiff sought "exclusive possession" of the Ferraris, which were titled and registered to her ex-husband and stored at the defendant dealership's facilities. Consistent with this claim, plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to the dealership requesting that it not release or transfer the Ferraris to anyone, including plaintiff's ex-husband, and threatening to hold the dealership liable for damages if it did. At the end of the letter, counsel asked the dealership to agree to abide by the demand and indicated that if it did not agree, plaintiff would "immediately seek to serve [the dealership] with a court order." The dealership did not respond.

Around the same time plaintiff's counsel sent this letter, the family part entered an order in the divorce proceeding preventing either party from dissipating, selling, etc. any assets of the marriage, and specifically identified the Ferraris in a list of assets to which this restraint applied. Plaintiff's counsel sent a copy of the order to the dealership, purportedly placing it on notice of the terms.

 

Continue reading “In Case You Ever Find Yourself Fighting With Your Wife Over Your Ferraris . . .”