Tag Archive for: case judgments

NJ Supreme Court Case Addresses Questions About Alimony Awards for Stay-At-Home Spouses: Gnall v. Gnall, Part II

iStock_000013732170Small

On July 29, 2015, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case of Gnall v. Gnall, an alimony case we first blogged about in November of 2014, following oral arguments. This case was decided under the New Jersey alimony statute as it existed prior to the recent reforms.  The Appellate Division reversed a trial court’s award of durational alimony to plaintiff Elizabeth Gnall and sent the case back for consideration of a permanent alimony award. Defendant James Gnall appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and instructed the trial court to instead make new findings of fact and re-determine the appropriate alimony award based on those new findings.
Read more

NJ Supreme Court Case Raises Important Questions About Alimony Awards for Stay-At-Home Spouses

cetified

The New Jersey Supreme Court yesterday began hearing arguments in the alimony dispute of Elizabeth Gnall v. James Gnall (Gnall v. Gnall). For anyone with questions concerning how and when permanent lifetime alimony is awarded, and whether stay-home-spouses should be expected to resume their career in the event of divorce, this is a case to pay attention because its outcome could change how future alimony awards are decided.

[Note: The NJ Supreme Court issued a decision in Gnall v. Gnall on July 29, 2015. For a summary of the Court’s findings, please see our update blog: NJ Supreme Court Case Addresses Questions About Alimony Awards for Stay-At-Home Spouses: Gnall v. Gnall (Part II).]

Read more

Who Says it Was an Agreement? When Palimony Becomes A Case in NJ

sign here please

New Jersey family law attorneys and their “palimony” clients have been anxiously awaiting an important decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court in the appeal of Maeker v. Ross, 430 N.J. Super. 79 (App. Div. 2013). On September 25, 2014, the Court handed down its opinion, holding, in short, that parties to palimony agreements that have not been reduced to a signed writing can still go to court to enforce those agreements, provided they were made prior to January 18, 2010. Read more