- 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 to
Page: 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