Timing Matters In Prenuptial Agreements

Prenuptial agreements can be an important legal tool for many couples entering into marriage. These agreements can allow individuals to outline the division of assets and financial responsibilities in case of divorce, and protect pre-marital assets and inheritance. They can also allow parties greater discretion in estate planning. In New Jersey, as in many other states, the timing of getting a prenuptial agreement is crucial to ensure its enforceability.

In New Jersey, the timing of when a couple discusses and executes a prenuptial agreement can significantly impact its enforceability. Courts generally advise couples to broach the subject well in advance of the wedding, ensuring that neither party feels rushed or pressured into signing. In 2021 the New Jersey Appellate Division in Steele v. Steele,  the court dealt with a prenuptial agreement that was signed by the bride seven months after the wedding while she was pregnant with the parties’ child. The timing raised questions about whether this was truly a prenuptial agreement and about the wife's ability to fully comprehend the agreement's implications, leading the court to rule the agreement partially unenforceable.

Transparency is another key aspect of the timing issue. The earlier the parties begin discussing the prenuptial agreement, the more opportunity they have to provide full and accurate financial disclosure. Steele v. Steele highlighted the need for both parties to be fully aware of each other's financial situations prior to signing. In this case, one of the central issues was the husband's failure to disclose certain assets adequately. This lack of transparency not only affected the court's decision regarding the agreement's enforceability but also strained the trust within the marriage itself.

It's important to note that the timing of a prenuptial agreement isn't just about how close it is to the wedding day. Courts consider the overall circumstances leading up to the agreement. If one party presents the agreement just days before the wedding and it's clear that the other party had no real opportunity to seek independent legal counsel or negotiate the terms, the court may view this as coercion. Steele v. Steele demonstrated the court's inclination to protect individuals from entering agreements under duress or undue influence.

To ensure the validity of a prenuptial agreement in New Jersey, couples should not only address the subject well in advance of the wedding but also allow for ample time for negotiation, review, and potential modifications. Seeking independent legal counsel is also strongly recommended to ensure that both parties fully understand the agreement's implications. The Steele v. Steele case serves as a poignant reminder of the significance of proper timing and transparency in prenuptial agreements. By addressing these aspects thoughtfully, couples can protect their interests while also upholding the principles of fairness and equity in their marriages.

For more information or assistance with your Prenuptial Agreement contact Georgia Fraser, Esq of Fraser Family Law Office LLC at 609-223-2099.

Easing the Standard for a Prima Face Case in Cohabitation Cases: A Closer Look at New Case Law Cardali v. Cardali

In a continued trend to make the prima facie showing of cohabitation easier, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in its recent August 2023 decision in Cardali v. Cardali that the moving party does not need to present evidence on all of the cohabitation factors set forth in Konzelman v Konzelman 158 N.J. 185 (1999) in order to be granted limited discovery. This includes not requiring the moving party to show intertwined finances. This is in keeping with the trend in cohabitation law set by the 2021 decision in Temple v Temple.

Cardali v. Cardali  : A Glimpse into the Case

In Cardali, the moving party John Cardali, a divorced man paying alimony to his ex-wife, Maria Cardali, petitioned the court to terminate his alimony payments on the grounds that Ms. Cardali is cohabitating with her new partner, Mark Anderson.

In Cardali, while the moving party showed indicia of cohabitation, he was unable to show evidence of any financial relationship between Ms. Cardali and Mr. Anderson. The Supreme Court noted at the outset that they did not view either the case law or the statute to “… require evidence of a financial relationship between the spouse or civil union partner receiving alimony and the other person as a prerequisite to discovery; as  a practical matter, such a showing may be impossible without discovery” (Emphasis added). This is a development of the holding in Temple that was not specifically addressed.

The Supreme Court ruled that as a policy, “…the mandate that a movant present a prima facie showing in order to obtain discovery is not intended to impose a high bar.” (Emphasis added). In fact, the Court reiterated the definition of prima facia as “evidence that, if unrebutted, would sustain a judgment in the proponent’s favor.” In fact, the Supreme Court in Cardali, noted as in prior cases, that the ability to show all facts, particularly intertwined finances, is not necessary, and in most cases, not possible. The Court held:

Indeed, any such requirement would impose an unfair burden on a movant at the preliminary stage. Absent discovery, a movant is unlikely to have access to the financial records and other documents relevant to Konzelman’s financial factors — “intertwined finances such as joint bank accounts” and “sharing living expenses” — or their statutory counterparts, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(n)(1) and (n)(2).

 Once a prima facie case is made and discovery is ordered, it is not meant to be a open ended fishing expedition. Rather, the Court held that:

In fashioning its discovery order, the trial court should take appropriate steps to safeguard the privacy of the spouse or civil union partner receiving alimony and the individual with whom that person is alleged to be cohabiting. Those steps may include, but are not limited to limited to, constraints on the discovery to be provided to the movant and protective orders limiting access to the information subject to discovery.

 The Court then noted that after this limited discovery, the procedure would be for the parties to submit supplemental certifications and if material facts remain in dispute, a plenary hearing should be conducted.

For help with your cohabitation case or your family law or divorce issues contact Georgia Fraser, Esq. at Fraser Family Law Office, LLC. 609-223-2099.

Four Relationship Patterns That Predict Divorce

Marriage can be a beautiful and fulfilling relationship, but one that can be fraught with lots of challenges. When a couple continually experiences negativity and conflict within their marriage it can take a toll on the relationship . How can we know whether that pattern of conflict will result in divorce?  

Psychologist Dr. John Gottman is a world-renowned psychologist and researcher who has spent more than four decades studying relationships and marriage. He is the co-founder of The Gottman Institute, which is dedicated to helping couples improve their relationships and reduce the divorce rate.Through extensive research Dr. Gottman identified four negative communication patterns that he calls the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, which can predict divorce with 93% accuracy. The Four Horsemen are:

CRITICISM: The first Horseman is Criticism. Criticism is different from offering constructive feedback; it involves attacking your partner's personality or character. For example, saying "You always forget to take out the trash. You're so lazy!" Instead, you could say "I noticed the trash hasn't been taken out. Can we discuss how we can improve our routine?" Criticism is destructive because it puts your partner on the defensive, leading to more arguments.

DEFENSIVENESS: The second Horseman is Defensiveness. When you feel attacked or criticized, your natural reaction might be to defend yourself. However, this can escalate the argument because it sends the message that you don't take responsibility for your actions. Instead, try to understand your partner's perspective and validate their feelings. For example, if your partner says, "You never listen to me," you could say "I'm sorry you feel that way. Let's talk about how we can improve our communication."

CONTEMPT: The third Horseman is Contempt. Contempt is the most destructive Horseman because it involves attacking your partner's sense of self-worth. Examples of contempt include eye-rolling, name-calling, and sarcasm. Contempt is a clear sign of disrespect and can cause irreparable damage to a relationship. Instead, focus on communicating with respect and empathy. Remember to always treat your partner with kindness.

STONEWALLING: The fourth Horseman is Stonewalling. Stonewalling occurs when one partner shuts down or withdraws from the conversation, refusing to engage. This behavior sends the message that you're not interested in resolving the issue, which can leave your partner feeling frustrated and unheard. Instead, take a break if you need to, but come back to the conversation when you're ready. Let your partner know that you're willing to work on the issue together.

The Four Horsemen are dangerous communication patterns that can predict the end of a relationship. To avoid them, it's important to practice healthy communication habits, such as active listening, validating your partner's feelings, and speaking respectfully. Dr. Gottman’s book The Love Prescription is an excellent resource for working on changing these negative patterns. However, if these patterns have continued for a long time and you have tried everything to improve your relationship without any improvement, it may be time to consider divorce.

If the Four Horsemen are present in your marriage and you need to educate yourself about the divorce process, please contact Georgia Fraser, Esq. at 609-223-2099 to set up a consultation.

New Cohabitation Case Law- The Standard for Proving Cohabitation to Terminate or Modify Alimony Just Became Easier.

On June 30, 2021 the New Jersey Appellate Court case, Temple v Temple, was approved for publication, making it binding case law in New Jersey.  How does this case now make it easier to prove cohabitation- well let me explain.

Alimony or spousal support in New Jersey may be suspended or terminated if the payee cohabits with another person. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. This required the Court to consider six (6) non-exclusive statutory factors, which include intertwined finances, sharing of living expenses, recognition of the relationship, duration of the relationship, sharing of household chores and other relevant evidence. Prior case law had put a significant burden on the paying spouse to prove cohabitation prior to being permitted discovery toward these six statutory factors.

The facts in Temple are not uncommon in cohabitation disputes. A husband and wife divorced after a lengthy marriage with an agreement in which the husband was to pay permanent alimony to wife. Sixteen years later, the husband filed an application with the court to terminate his alimony obligation, alleging the wife had either remarried or was cohabitating with a man whom she had been in a long-term relationship post-divorce.

The wife filed a written response with her own alleged explanations as to her relationship with the gentleman, and alleged she was neither remarried nor cohabitating with him as defined by statute. The trial judge, incorrectly, accepted the wife’s written explanation as true and denied the husband’s application. In doing so, the husband was prevented from conducting discovery and obtaining disclosure of information and/or documentation which may have provided him with further evidence of the wife’s cohabitation.

The husband filed a successful appeal, and the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s denial and remanded the case to allow husband the opportunity to seek discovery and an evidentiary hearing. In doing so, the Temple court clarified how trial courts need to approach allegations of cohabitation and under what circumstances discovery will be allowed.

While prior case law had given the impression that trial courts should only allow discovery if a high burden of proof was initially satisfied and substantial evidence was independently obtained by the alimony payor, Temple now appears to have lowered that bar substantially.

The decision in Temple is significant, and likely will allow many more alimony payors to succeed in obtaining rights to discovery from their ex-spouse to obtain evidence they would have otherwise been prevented from obtaining to rightfully prove their case and have their alimony properly reduced, suspended or terminated.

Success in cohabitation litigation largely depends on the proper timing of your filing as well as the investigation and precise presentation and application of the facts in your matter to applicable law. 

---

Contact Georgia Fraser, Esq. at Fraser Family Law Office LLC for help with your family law or divorce issue. 609-223-2099.

---

Contribution to College Costs—Does my relationship with my child matter?

One of the most common post divorce litigation issues that I see involves the selection and contribution toward college costs.  Usually divorce agreements fall into two categories; those that specify exactly what the parties’ contribution toward college will be and those that indicate that a determination of the parties’ contribution will “abide the event,” and be based upon a consideration of the parties’ abilities to pay and the other common law factors found in the seminal case Newburgh v. Arrigo.   Both of these provisions often lead to litigation because of the failure to be able to reach agreement as to not only which college should the child or children choose (the costs of which can vary in staggering amounts), but also the parties’ abilities to contribute to these costs.

What is the law around college contribution?

In New Jersey parents have an obligation to contribute toward the college education of their children and, in fact, college contribution is considered a form of chid support. However, the determination of whether parents should be required to contribute toward their child’s college education costs is a fact sensitive determination. The seminal case utilized to determine whether parents should contribute to their children’s college expenses is Newburgh v Arrigo, which sets forth a 12 factor analysis.  These factors are as follows:

1. 1 whether the parent would have contributed toward the costs of the requested higher education if they still lived together

2. the background values and goals of the parent and the reasonableness of the expectation that the child attain higher education

3. the amount sought by the child for the cost of higher education

4. the ability of the parent to pay that cost

5. the relationship of the requested contribution to the kind of school or course of study sought by the child

6. the financial resources of both parents

7. the commitment to and aptitude of the child for the requested education

8. the financial resources of the child, including assets owned individually or held in custodianship or trust

9. the ability of the child to earn income during the school year or on vacation

10. the availability of financial aid in the form of college grants and loans

11. the child's relationship to the paying parent, including mutual affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice and guidance, and

12. the relationship of the education requested to any prior training and to the overall long-range goals of the child.

However, these factors do not apply and are not to be considered in cases in which the parties have reached a specific agreement as to their contribution toward college unless it is proven that the parties’ agreement is unfair and inequitable or their has been a material change in circumstance since the agreement. (See Avellino v Catabran)

What if I have an Estranged Relationship with my child?

The Answer is – it depends.  In my recent Appellate Division case K.L.B.v. R.B the Court upheld the parties’ agreement for a specific percentage contribution toward their children’s college costs despite the father’s estrangement from his children because there was no material change in circumstance from this estrangement which had existed at the time of the entry of the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement.

However, the Courts in New Jersey have excused parents under other fact patterns (after a fact sensitive analysis) from their obligation toward their children’s college expenses. In Gac v. Gac, a child sought to have her estranged father pay her college loans. The court examined the Newburgh factors and held that under the circumstances, the parent did not have to pay the child’s college loans. While the court clearly reinforced that a relationship between the parent and child was not necessary for the court to order that the estranged parent pay for higher education, in this case the parent was relieved of his obligation because he was never asked to pay for college until after the expense had been incurred and he was never consulted about his daughter’s decisions to pursue higher education. The Gac case provides some general guidelines to consider in your college contribution case: 1) a child or his/her parent should make the request of the noncustodial parent for contribution before incurring college debt; 2) the parent or child should discuss with the other parent the choice to pursue higher education; and 3) the issue should be brought before the court prior to incurring the debt.

In 2014 , the chancery division case of Black v. Black again dealt with this issue of estrangement as a consideration in a college contribution case. The court again held that a parents’ contribution to college costs in New Jersey is not dependent on a close or non-estranged parent-child relationship. The court noted its concern that a parent not be able to get out of paying for college by intentionally avoiding any relationship with their child. In this case, it was the child who did not want a relationship with the father. Noting that the parents had previously agreed that father and son would attend counseling together so that they could work on their relationship, and that they did not in fact attend counseling sessions, the court ordered that the father’s contribution toward his son’s college was contingent on the son’s obligation to attend joint counseling sessions with his father.  (It should be noted that this case is not considered binding on the higher courts because it is a chancery or trial court level case).

What does this mean for my case?

If you are in the middle of a post-divorce litigation over college contribution, it is very important that your counsel understand not only the case law surrounding college contribution but the specific facts of your case- as these cases really turn on a fact-sensitive analysis. If you are in the middle of the divorce process and have not yet signed a Marital Settlement Agreement, it is also extremely important that your agreement reflect your intent regarding your contribution toward your child’s college education as well as to protect you with regard to your potential future contribution toward these costs.

To find out more about contribution toward college expenses in divorce, please contact Georgia Fraser, Esq. at Fraser Family Law Office LLC at 609-223-2099.

Here’s What You Need to Know About the New Law on Relocation

Looking to Move Out of State or Keep Your Child From Being Relocated – Here’s What You Need to Know About the New Law on Relocation.

In August, the New Jersey Supreme Court departed from the legal standard that had been in place for 16 years as it pertains to relocation by a custodial parent from the State of New Jersey.   Bisbing v. Bisbing, 2017 N.J. LEXIS 830, 2017 WL 3392717 (N.J. Aug. 8, 2017). If you have a potential relocation issue in your divorce or custody case, it is important that you educate yourself as to how this change in the law impacts you. 

Here is an overview of the basics:

1. You cannot remove your child from the State of New Jersey without an Order of the Court or Consent of the Other Parent:

N.J.S.A 9:2-2 entitled: “Custody of children of divorced or separated parents within jurisdiction of Superior Court; removal from jurisdiction; consent; security”

states:

When the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the custody and maintenance of the minor children of parents divorced, separated or living separate, and such children are natives of this State, or have resided five years within its limits, they shall not be removed out of its jurisdiction against their own consent, if of suitable age to signify the same, nor while under that age without the consent of both parents, unless the court, upon cause shown, shall otherwise order. The court, upon application of any person in behalf of such minors, may require such security and issue such writs and processes as shall be deemed proper to effect the purposes of this section.

N.J.S.A. 9:2-2.

2. The party seeking to relocate must show “cause” before a court will permit the removal of a child from the State of New Jersey:

N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 requires a showing of “cause” by the party seeking relocation, before a court will authorize the permanent removal of a child to another state without consent of both parents.

3. Best Interests of the Child Standard Now Governs (Old Standard (Baures v. Lewis) v. New Standard (Bisbing v. Bisbing)

The old standard set forth under Baures v. Lewis  involved the application by the court of a two-prong test in situations in which there is a primary custodial parent, which was (1) that there is a good faith reason for the move and (2) that the move would not be inimical to the best interests of the child. 167 N.J. 91 (2001). The New Jersey Supreme Court in Bisbing departed from the Baures two-part test and rather indicated that in all relocation disputes where the parties share joint legal custody that, “the trial court should decide whether there is “cause” under N.J.S.A. 9:2–2 to authorize a child’s relocation out of state by weighing the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 9:2–4, and other relevant considerations, and determining whether the relocation is in the child’s best interests.” Bisbing, [emphasis added] 2017 N.J. LEXIS 830, 40.

The Court in Bisbing, indicates that, “[t]he Legislature required a showing of "cause" for an out-of-state relocation under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 in order ‘to preserve the rights of the noncustodial parent and the child to maintain and develop their familial relationship.’” (citing to Holder v. Polanski, 111 N.J. 344, 350, 544 A.2d 852 (1988) (quoting Cooper v. Cooper, 99 N.J. 42, 50, 491 A.2d 606 (1984)).  In determining whether the relocation is in the child’s best interests, the Court has indicated that “the trial court should decide whether there is “cause” under N.J.S.A. 9:2–2 to authorize a child’s relocation out of state by weighing the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 9:2–4, and other relevant considerations.” The factors to be considered under N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 are as follows:

the parents’ ability to agree, communicate and cooperate in matters relating to the child; the parents’ willingness to accept custody and any history of unwillingness to allow parenting time not based on substantiated abuse; the interaction and relationship of the child with its parents and siblings; the history of domestic violence, if any; the safety of the child and the safety of either parent from physical abuse by the other parent; the preference of the child when of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent decision; the needs of the child; the stability of the home environment offered; the quality and continuity of the child’s education; the fitness of the parents; the geographical proximity of the parents’ homes; the extent and quality of the time spent with the child prior to or subsequent to the separation; the parents’ employment responsibilities; and the age and number of the children. A parent shall not be deemed unfit unless the parents’ conduct has a substantial adverse effect on the child.

N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.

Relocation issues present some of the most difficult family law cases because of the competing needs to preserve the child’s relationship with their parent at the same time taking into consideration the potential benefits to the child of a relocation.  It is important to understand how this new law impacts you in negotiating and litigating your custody case.

For more information about relocation or any other custody issues, please contact Georgia Fraser, Esq. of Fraser Family Law Office LLC. 609-223-2099.

So You’re thinking of Getting Divorced: Understanding Alternative Dispute Resolution and Why You Should Consider it.

When it comes to divorce, everyone has heard the time-honored phrases, “I’ll see you in court!” and “you’ll be hearing from my attorney.”  But what a lot of people don’t know are that there are several options for how to resolve your divorce that don’t involve going to court. Attorneys call the method by which a divorce is conducted “dispute resolution” and there is the traditional dispute resolution process of filing a Complaint for Divorce and going to Court where a Family Court Judge makes decisions regarding the issues that are in dispute in your case. And then there is the kinder, nicer, more-cost effective world of dispute resolution that attorney’s call alternative dispute resolution (ADR). 

Among these alternative dispute resolution options there is mediation (see my prior blog article on the top reasons you should mediate your case), arbitration and collaborative law process.  Each one of these ADR options are confidential and are more cost effective than going to court. Let’s take a look at all three:

Mediation:  The mediation process is an alternative way of resolving issues in a divorce case in a way that is fair and mutually acceptable to both parties. The mediation process is a confidential process that can be used to avoid going to court at all or that can be used as a tool to resolve all or part of a divorce case that is pending before the court.  The parties retain an independent mediator, who most often is a family law attorney, but who does not act as the lawyer for either party.  The parties establish the priorities and issues to bring to mediation and the mediator helps the parties work toward resolution of these issues by finding common ground and helping the parties understand the law as it applies to their case. The mediator can make suggestions to the parties, but these suggestions are not binding.  If the parties reach an agreement in mediation, the mediator can prepare a memorandum of understanding which can be reviewed by the parties’ individual attorneys and used to create a divorce agreement (oftentimes referred to as Marital Settlement or Property Settlement Agreement).  Mediation is beneficial in many ways, most importantly it takes less time and money than the traditional route of heading to court.

Collaborative Law Process:  The collaborative divorce process is an alternative way of getting divorced that allows parties to achieve a mutually acceptable resolution of all issues without going to court. The collaborative process, like mediation, is confidential and gives control over the outcome to the divorcing couple. In the collaborative process both parties agree from the start not to resort to litigation. All parties sign a “Participation Agreement” which includes an agreement that the parties will not go to court (i.e. litigate the case). The parties utilize a collaborative “team” approach that can include attorneys, financial professionals and divorce coaches to work together to help the parties reach a mutually agreeable resolution of their divorce case.

Arbitration:  Arbitration is a method of divorce resolution in which the parties opt to hire an objective third party family law attorney or retired judge to listen to the arguments of both parties on contested divorce issues or the divorce case in its entirety and to render a decision on the terms of the parties’ divorce.  It is similar to a court proceeding in terms of it essentially being a “hearing.” The parties can elect whether arbitration is binding or not binding. The arbitration award, or the arbitrator’s decisions, cannot be appealed with binding arbitrations unless it can be proven that the arbitrator was clearly biased against one spouse.  A spouse can appeal a non-binding arbitration award, but if the court agrees with the arbitrator, the losing spouse may be ordered to pay the other spouse’s legal costs in full.

To learn more about process might be right for you and your family or to discuss private mediation, contact Georgia Fraser, Esq. at Fraser Family Law Office, LLC at 609-223-2099

The Top Reasons You Should Mediate Your Divorce Case

1. Cost-Effective: Recent statistics from the American Bar Association indicate that mediating your divorce case will cost you 40-60% less than litigating your divorce case;
2. It’s Better for Your Children: Mediation avoids your children being involved in the divorce litigation, reduces the overall stress on the family and allows your children to see their parents cooperating;
3. More Control over the Discussion and Process: The parties can control the issues that they address with the mediator and prioritize in what order they address them;
4. Faster than Going to Court: Litigated divorce cases can take anywhere from 1 to 3 years to be finalized and are still subject to appeals and further litigation. Mediation can accomplish the amicable resolution of your divorce case in a matter of weeks or months;
5. Greater flexibility Regarding Scheduling: Unlike litigation where you are subject to a rigid court calendar and mandatory court appearances, in mediation the parties can schedule mediation sessions at their convenience, taking in to consideration work and family obligations;
6. A More Confidential Process: Unlike the publicly filed case documents and public oral arguments made in litigated cases, the majority of your mediated case remains completely confidential;
7. Attention to Your Case: A mediator can give a lot of individual attention to the details and needs of your specific case;
8. Greater Post-Divorce Stability: The good will and cooperation that is built during mediation can help parties avoid acrimony post-divorce.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

For more information about mediation, please contact Georgia Fraser, Esq. of Fraser Family Law Office, LLC. at 609-223-2099.

Getting Through: Freeing Ourselves From Heartache

I read a gorgeous New York Times Article recently about Dr. B.J. Miller, a palliative care doctor, who became a doctor after becoming a triple amputee. He has become famous in the last 2 years from his 2015 TED talk entitled “What really matters at the end of life,” (which has about 5 million views).  What struck me most about Dr. Miller is how in learning to embrace his injuries he learned the truth about what truly makes us whole. A truth that he uses to help dying people face death.

The question he asks of his dying patients with maybe only months, weeks or even days to live is “What is your favorite part of yourself?” “What do we want to protect as everything falls apart?” And that answer is different for each of his patients. I was intrigued by Dr. Miller’s question because it probes at the essence of who we are – a thread that we may sometimes lose sight of, but that doesn’t break, that remains whole. The thread that can lead us back to ourselves and bring us ease in times of suffering and heartache.

Dr. Miller, himself, is deeply inspiring to read about. A triple amputee from a young man, who went on to complete an Art History degree at Princeton and then become a world renowned palliative care doctor. Someone who hasn’t become smaller because of his physical limitations, but who aside from all his other impressive achievements, mountain bikes and rides motorcycles.  He appears to be fully inhabiting his life, despite his physical limitations.

In my law practice, I am witness to a lot of heartache and suffering. It is the thing that makes us all so intensely human and the practice of family law so challenging. “Suffering is a variation on a theme we all deal with, to be human is really hard,” Dr. Miller states.  And it is. The article on Dr. Miller has a wonderful quote at the end about the direction that he is taking with his own life that is akin to the question that he asks of his dying patients, and that is that he is “committing to the parts of himself that are most meaningful and trying to shake free of all of the other unhelpful expectations.”  It seems to me that “committing to the most meaningful parts of ourselves,” is the path toward learning how to fully live in spite of our own inevitable human heartache and suffering. Perhaps, it is even the way to get free of it.

For help getting through the heartache of a family law crisis, please contact Georgia Fraser, Esq. of Fraser Family Law Office (609)223-2099.

5 Tips to Avoid Going Back to Court Post-Divorce

Sometimes the end of your divorce case is just the beginning of a long road of dealing with your ex-spouse. Maybe you have small children and will be co-parenting for many years, you have a home or retirement assets that you have to work together to divide or maybe you have support obligations that will have to be adjusted or revisited in the years following your divorce. The emotional and financial cost of continuously litigating with your ex-spouse is great and can dramatically impact your quality of life post-divorce. In my almost twenty years of practicing family law, the following are my most frequently recommended tips for avoiding unnecessary court costs and post-divorce conflict:

1. Lock-Down Important Details in Your Divorce Agreement or Settlement: Vague or open-ended provisions in agreements or settlements can sometimes lead to problems down the road and unnecessary trips back to the courthouse. Missing provisions in parenting time agreements or failure to establish deadlines for the sale of assets can create opportunities for conflict and can be costly to resolve. Make sure you discuss issues of concern with your family law attorney during your divorce process to ensure that your agreement does not have vague or ambiguous provisions;
2. Understand your Agreements or Orders:  Make sure that you not only understand the terms of your agreements before you sign them, but that you understand what your rights and obligations are after your divorce is over. Read through your agreement and make sure to make note of deadlines for such things as paying support or other court ordered obligations, re-financing mortgages, filing deeds, transferring titles, and exchanging insurance information. If there is something that you don’t understand, make sure to reach out to your family law attorney to discuss. Many times violations of court orders or enforcement motions to the court can be avoided if parties are proactive about understanding and cooperating with the  provisions of their agreements or terms of court orders.
3. Practice Good Faith Co-Parenting and Communication: Sometimes the acrimony of the divorce process can make it difficult to to communicate with your ex-spouse or to feel willing to offer compromises or concessions post-divorce. However, flexibility, compromise and respectful communication can be essential in avoiding unnecessary post-divorce conflict or expensive post-divorce court proceedings.  Whenever possible, try to work through changes to parenting time schedules, issues around extra-curricular activities or other issues involving your children amicably with your ex-spouse. Likewise, if changes occur with respect to financial aspects of your settlement, try to see if you can work it out with your spouse first before heading to the courthouse.
4. Get Informed: Before running to the courthouse to file a post-divorce application or sending demand letters to your ex-spouse, meet with a family law attorney to understand the applicable laws around your issue, the different legal options available to you and the cost of these options. Sometimes your attorney may be able to offer suggestions or solutions that can save you a lot of time, money and aggravation.
5. Consider Mediation or Other Alternative Dispute Resolution Options:  In situations where its not possible to communicate or resolve post-divorce issues directly with your ex-spouse, or where you have reached a stalemate in your discussions,  there are other alternatives to heading to court that I stronglyI encourage my clients to explore. Post-divorce mediation or arbitration can be a timely and cost-effective way to avoid the emotional and financial costs of litigating post-divorce issues and can allow parties to maintain some control over the outcome.

For assistance with a post-divorce issue, please contact Georgia Fraser at 609-223-2099.