Sauro v. Sauro, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2012).  This contentious divorce action boiled down to the complaint of a large law firm that an equitable distribution award was improper because, in making that award, the Family Part improperly elevated the interests of the divorcing couple’s children in having money available for their college education above the law firm’s charging lien.  Though the two parents had agreed on virtually nothing else in that lengthy litigation, both parents, acting pro se in the Appellate Division, contended that the Family Part ha

Holst-Knudsen v. Mikisch, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2012).  In Emma v. Evans, 424 N.J. Super. 36 (App. Div. 2012), a panel of the Appellate Division addressed the issue of a name change for a child born in wedlock and ruled that “the presumption in favor of the parent of primary residence when seeking, over the other parent’s objection, a change in the surname of a child,” did not apply t

Ducey v. Ducey, 424 N.J. Super. 80 (App. Div. 2012).  After a fourteen-day trial, a Family Part judge entered a judgment of divorce and stated that “the underlying opinion will be sent shortly.”  Not until three months later did the judge forward her opinion.  The “substantive provisions” of that eventual opinion “diverged dramatically” from the judgment of divorce, and the judge directed counsel to prepare a new judgment of divorce.  Both sides appealed