To Bali's point....

[tuffbrk]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NJ

Recently a member of a reform group that I belong to sat in jail for weeks, was let go from his job, all because he paid $5,500 a month in alimony. The courts wanted him to pay $8,400 which was more than he made. Despite protests in front of the court house, publicity on live radio shows and newspapers, etc. it took a motion before the NJ State Supreme court to finally get him out of jail. The Supreme Court directed him to pay $4,000 a month in alimony - less than what he had been paying when he was jailed. Google John Waldorf to read the myriad of stories...

But to Bali's point - you have to wonder on what basis the judge made the decision - week after week - to keep the guy in jail. What did it accomplish? Then he wasn't paying anything where he had been paying over $5,000 a month, his son lost his health insurance because he was let go from his job. Why did it take an act of the NJ Supreme court for the guy to get a reasonable decision from a family court?

Oh - and the presiding judge in the case? Removed from Family court and now handling criminal court cases in Newark, NJ. And no, this isn't one bad apple in the family court system....there is another judge awarding custody to dad's that have been convicted of crimes, domestic violence, have mob ties, etc. So currently there are demonstrations against that judge in the hopes of getting some justice.

Family court is in need of an overhaul in most states. Judges do not rule consistently in their own courtrooms from day to day. Today the decision is Yes and tomorrow, with the same set of circumstance, the decision is No. It's incredible. Further, there is no consistency from judge x in Room 1 and Judge y in Room 2 - never mind from county to county and/or across the state. It's truly a sad situation in the states that do not provide strict economic guidelines for the judges.

 

[Bali Hai]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NJ

Recently a member of a reform group that I belong to sat in jail for weeks, was let go from his job, all because he paid $5,500 a month in alimony. The courts wanted him to pay $8,400 which was more than he made. Despite protests in front of the court house, publicity on live radio shows and newspapers, etc. it took a motion before the NJ State Supreme court to finally get him out of jail. The Supreme Court directed him to pay $4,000 a month in alimony - less than what he had been paying when he was jailed. Google John Waldorf to read the myriad of stories...

But to Bali's point - you have to wonder on what basis the judge made the decision - week after week - to keep the guy in jail. What did it accomplish? Then he wasn't paying anything where he had been paying over $5,000 a month, his son lost his health insurance because he was let go from his job. Why did it take an act of the NJ Supreme court for the guy to get a reasonable decision from a family court?

Oh - and the presiding judge in the case? Removed from Family court and now handling criminal court cases in Newark, NJ. And no, this isn't one bad apple in the family court system....there is another judge awarding custody to dad's that have been convicted of crimes, domestic violence, have mob ties, etc. So currently there are demonstrations against that judge in the hopes of getting some justice.

Family court is in need of an overhaul in most states. Judges do not rule consistently in their own courtrooms from day to day. Today the decision is Yes and tomorrow, with the same set of circumstance, the decision is No. It's incredible. Further, there is no consistency from judge x in Room 1 and Judge y in Room 2 - never mind from county to county and/or across the state. It's truly a sad situation in the states that do not provide strict economic guidelines for the judges.

Very well spoken tuffbrk.....

 

[stealth2]

There is always more than one side to a story, and it appears that Mr Waldorf may not be the victim that he is being portrayed as.

From what I read, he was released on the condition that he pay $1000 of te total he currently owes. Has he done so? Where does HE live? Is he being supported by a third party?

All is not always as it seems.

 

[tuffbrk]

There is always more than one side to a story, and it appears that Mr Waldorf may not be the victim that he is being portrayed as.

From what I read, he was released on the condition that he pay $1000 of te total he currently owes. Has he done so? Where does HE live? Is he being supported by a third party?

All is not always as it seems.

Hi there. Mr. Waldorf currently lives in his parent's basement. His parents have previously paid the requested purge amounts. They simply could no longer afford to do so and so he sat in jail. I don't know about the payment or the payment requirement as it wasn't referenced in any of the accounts that I had been sent.

Although there are 2 sides to the story, it is very telling that the State Supreme Court released him, reduced his alimony to $4,000 per month which is much more appropriate than what he had been ordered to pay and reassigned the judge originally overseeing the case. The motions submitted are all available through the online NJ court site.

Mr. Waldorf was ordered to pay more than he earned at the time of the divorce. He was ordered to cash in his retirement plans to cover the difference. To further compound the difficulties, his salary is directly affected by the contracts accepted by his employer. He is a W-2 employee that works for a company that is subcontracted and awarded contracts by other parties. Shortly after the divorce, the contract that he was working was terminated with his employer and he was laid off. There was quite a bit of effort to portray him as having quit his job and becoming purposely underemployed.

It is quite often difficult for people to truly understand what happens in family court when it comes to alimony. The payers are put through so much, have to spend so much all to have their motions denied more often than not anyway. It's horrific. I wouldn't wish what I have gone through, and continue to go through, on anyone. People not stuck in the alimony merry go round are always under the assumption that something was left out of the story simply because the results are so incredible.

The most recent example is a case in which an ex-wife must continue to pay her ex-husband full alimony despite the fact that he is remarried. Clearly, this was an oversight on the part of the ex-wife's attorney. Clearly, Lepis should take precedence on the case. Yet it didn't. The Family court in NJ actually overruled Lepis!

Or take the case of - we'll call her Tara - whose ex-husband (then STBX) forced her off the Parkway, into a ditch, in which her car rolled multiple times. Her STBX then got out of his vehicle and proceeded to use a crow bar to further destroy the car. Fortunately, a state trooper who had just gotten off duty witnessed the whole thing, called an ambulance for Tara who was unconscious, and arrested the STBX. That same officer then ensured that Tara pressed charges and obtained counseling. She was ordered to pay her ex alimony. She has undergone multiple surgeries due to the injuries sustained in the "accident." Finally, she was put on permanent disability as the damage to her hands and wrists made it impossible for her to administer shots (she was a nurse), hold a pen, type, etc. The NJ Family Court has refused to terminate her alimony payments to the person that caused her to be put on disability in the first place. Tara, by the way, is over 60.

Clearly, I could go on and on. However, the point is that what should happen in Family court doesn't always happen. What is perceived by the average joe (myself included) as reasonable and fair is not the end result. So to Bali's point, quite often the end result in court is dependent upon the judge that you have, whether they are in a good mood or bad and what perceptions/personal opinions they bring with them to court that day. Which frankly is unacceptable.

 

[stealth2]

Psssst, tuff... judges are human.

 

[tuffbrk]

Yeah, I know. I just wish we could get some legislation passed that made things a bit more black and white in Family court. I belong to two alimony reform groups and we're trying. The NJ Bar, though, has hired two lobbyists that work on opposing any proposed reform legislation full time whereas our groups are grass roots organizations and rely on volunteers. So again I feel as if it's all about the money. If you have it, you can fight- both in court and in the legislature. If you don't have the money, you're pretty much sunk. It just seems so unfair.

I'm sorry - I seem to be a little blue today....and here it is Fat Tuesday. I've got to work on changing my attitude!

Thanks and have a happy!