- 15 - Dr. Gonzales’ payments rather than terminate them altogether. Indeed, there are no counterindications.” The Court also stated, however, that had the payee spouse “died before the superior court entered the divorce decree, Dr. Gonzales, as the noncustodial parent of three children, could have remained liable to pay family support, whether in full or in diminished amounts.” (Emphasis added.) Conceivably, the facts in Gonzales could fall within the “highly unusual circumstances” referred to by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Carr v. Carr, supra at 875, that provide an exception to the general rule that divorce proceedings abate with the death of either party. In any event, the holding of Gonzales was essentially based upon the fact that the payor spouse was a noncustodial parent. Since, under N.J. Stat. Ann. sec. 9:2-5 (West 2003), quoted above, custody does not automatically revert to the noncustodial parent when the custodial parent dies, the Carr v. Carr, supra, exception could perhaps be held to apply under facts like those in Gonzales, and, assuming such applicability, a New Jersey court would continue to have jurisdiction to modify the pendente lite order to provide continuing family support. In the instant case, Mr. Kean and Ms. Kean shared custody of the children. The November 25, 1992, Order denied both Mr. Kean and Ms. Kean’s separate applications for pendente lite physical custody of the children, and ordered Mr. Kean and Ms. Kean toPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011