KATHLEEN KRUPINSKI N/K/A KATHLEEN GOCKLIN VS. MICHAEL KRUPINSKI A-2300-12T2

KATHLEEN KRUPINSKI N/K/A KATHLEEN GOCKLIN VS. MICHAEL KRUPINSKI 

A-2300-12T2 

Defendant appeals from the order of the Family Part denying his motion to terminate his obligation to pay permanent alimony. Although the motion judge found defendant's retirement created "changed circumstances" under Lepis, the judge did not consider whether plaintiff can maintain her former marital lifestyle after she began receiving her equitable distribution share of defendant's pension. Although under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b), the share of retirement benefits that has been equitably distributed is not "income" to plaintiff for purposes of determining alimony, defendant must be given the opportunity to prove that the value of plaintiff's share of his retirement benefit was enhanced by his "post-divorce efforts." If defendant is able to quantify the value of his post-divorce efforts, the court must then consider that "enhanced value" as "income" to plaintiff and outside the bar in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b). If this "income" to plaintiff allows her to maintain a lifestyle equal to or better than her marital lifestyle, defendant is entitled to terminate his permanent alimony obligation. We reverse and remand for limited discovery and an evidentiary hearing. 

KHASHAYAR VOSOUGH, M.D., ET AL. VS. ROGER KIERCE, M.D., ET AL. A-3017-11T1

KHASHAYAR VOSOUGH, M.D., ET AL. VS. ROGER KIERCE, M.D., ET AL. 

A-3017-11T1 

In this common law contract and tortious interference case, plaintiff doctors claimed damages on the ground that defendant hospital's bylaws were violated and not enforced by the hospital. The jury's verdict of about $1.27 million for plaintiffs is reversed because they did not have viable theories of recovery and because they did not prove compensable damages. 

The same conduct of the individual defendants (the hospital's CEO and a department chairman) that allegedly constituted their tortious interference with plaintiffs' independent contractor agreements could not also constitute their conduct on behalf of the hospital that constituted the hospital's breach of the contract. 

Furthermore, the at-will independent contractor agreements limited the doctors' claim for future lost income to 60 days, which was the time for notice by either party that the contract would be terminated. 

DYFS vs. S.I. I/M/O S.I., a minor. A-2878-12T1

DYFS vs. S.I. I/M/O S.I., a minor. 

A-2878-12T1 

We reversed an order of abuse and neglect resulting from a custodial grandparent's refusal to comply with the Division's recommendation for the twelve-year-old child to undergo a psychiatric assessment. The grandmother insisted the child was rebelling and acting out, and was not suicidal. The Division removed the child, obtained what was an unremarkable mental health assessment, and filed Title 9 complaint alleging medical neglect. 

We concluded there was no competent evidence the conduct complained of rose to the level of abuse and neglect because there was no proof the disagreement with the Division's recommendation recklessly created a substantial risk to the child's mental or physical safety, as required by N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (2013). The trial judge's view that an immediate mental status evaluation was necessary was based on a generalized concern for teenage suicide and untethered to the facts of the case, which was void of factual or expert evidence demonstrating the child was in imminent danger. [*Approved for Publication date] 

JAMES F. WALTERS V. YMCA A-1062-12T3

JAMES F. WALTERS V. YMCA 

A-1062-12T3 

Plaintiff sued the YMCA after he slipped and fell on steps that led to the indoor pool. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's complaint based on an exculpatory clause included in the membership agreement plaintiff signed to access YMCA's facilities and physical fitness equipment. The motion judge found plaintiff's cause of action was barred under the Court's holding in Stelluti v. Casapenn Enters., Inc., 203 N.J. 286 (2010). 

  We reverse because the type of expansive exculpatory clause involved here was specifically not addressed by the 

Court in Stelluti. Applying the standard for enforceability in Gershon v. Regency Diving Ctr., Inc., 368 N.J. Super. 237, 248 (App. Div. 2004), endorsed by the Court in Stelluti, we hold the YMCA's exculpatory clause is unenforceable because it would eviscerate the common law duty of care owed by the YMCA to its invitees, regardless of the nature of the business activity involved. 

THE RIDGE AT BACK BROOK, LLC VS. W. THOMAS KLENERT A-2345-12T1

THE RIDGE AT BACK BROOK, LLC VS. W. THOMAS KLENERT 

A-2345-12T1 

Defendant represented himself from the commencement of the action, through the summary judgment stage and when final judgment was entered. Following the entry of final judgment, defendant retained counsel and unsuccessfully sought Rule 4:50 relief, arguing he could not previously afford counsel and did not understand what was required of him in responding to Rule 4:22 requests or in opposing summary judgment. In this appeal, the court vacated the order denying Rule 4:50 relief, concluding the trial judge should have more liberally indulged defendant's argument and remanding for that purpose. The court held the Rule 4:50 motion should have been treated in the same manner as such motions are treated when the moving party has been represented by a negligent attorney, as in cases such as Parker v. Marcus, 281 N.J. Super. 589, 593 (App. Div. 1995), certif. denied, 143 N.J. 324 (1996). 

GLOBE MOTOR COMPANY AND THE MARGOLIS LAW FIRM, LLC VS. ILYA IGDALEV AND JULIA IGDALEV A-0897-12T1

GLOBE MOTOR COMPANY AND THE MARGOLIS LAW FIRM, LLC VS. ILYA IGDALEV AND JULIA IGDALEV 

A-0897-12T1 

Plaintiffs' action sought enforcement of the terms of settlement, when a portion of the funds transferred by defendants in satisfaction of their obligations was reclaimed by a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee as a fraudulent transfer of the corporate debtor's funds. Defendant Ilya Igdalev certified the bank and certified checks he gave plaintiffs were sent by his friend, who was holding Ilya's money, which he was owed. In support of summary judgment, plaintiffs attached the Trustee's adversary proceeding, emails from bankruptcy counsel suggesting, after his review, settlement was appropriate, and the final settlement of the adversary proceeding. 

J.B. v. W.B. (A-111-11

 J.B. v. W.B. (A-111-11; 069972) 

A parent seeking to modify a negotiated agreement for the support of a disabled child through the establishment of a special needs trust must present a specific plan and demonstrate how the proposed trust will benefit the disabled child. When a disabled child is the subject of a proposed special needs trust, it is within the trial court’s discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem.