Liss v. Liss

Decision Date06 May 1952
Docket NumberNo. A--199,A--199
Citation19 N.J.Super. 358,88 A.2d 526
PartiesLISS v. LISS.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Joseph Schoenholz, Newark, argued the cause for appellant (C. Robert Sarcone, Newark, attorney).

No appearance for respondent.

Before Judges McGEEHAN, JAYNE and GOLDMANN.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from an order entered in the Chancery Division on December 19, 1951, fixing at $300 the amount of arrears due under an order entered June 25, 1948 for the support of the infant son, to be paid at the rate of $10 a week; directing defendant to pay $20 a week for the support of the child and $5 a week for the support of the plaintiff, beginning December 10, 1951; denying her application for medical expenses for an eye operation, and allowing $100 counsel fee and actual disbursements to her attorney.

Plaintiff obtained a decree Nisi on May 7, 1947 on the ground of defendant's extreme cruelty. It made no provision for alimony or support for the child. Thereafter, she obtained the order of June 25, 1948, modifying the decree Nisi by awarding custody to plaintiff with right of visitation in the father, and directing defendant to pay plaintiff $15 a week for the support of the boy. In May 1951 plaintiff moved to have defendant adjudged guilty of contempt for failure to make support payments from September 13, 1948 to November 14, 1950, totalling $1,680 and for an increase in the support allowance, exclusion of defendant's right of visitation, payment for plaintiff's medical care, and counsel fees and costs. Her supporting affidavit revealed that she took the child to Florida on the advice of its physician and remained there from December 28, 1948 to July 1950, a period of 78 weeks. The advisory master concluded that defendant was only $300 in arrears (20 weeks at $15 a week), eliminating from his calculations the 78 weeks plaintiff and the boy had spent in Florida. The support order was increased to $20 a week, defendant was directed to pay $10 a week on account of the arrears, plaintiff's application for payment of an eye operation was denied, and the visitation arrangement continued.

Plaintiff immediately filed a notice of motion for reargument, stating she would also apply for support for herself. The result was the order of the Superior Court judge which is the subject of this appeal. Plaintiff claims the arrearages were wrongly determined, that the alimony and support allowances are both inadequate and should have been made retroactive to the time of the respective applications therefor, and that there was error in denying a request for medical expenses. She also claims that the counsel fee of $100 allowed by the trial court is inadequate. The respondent has not defended the appeal.

Defendant's income tax return for 1950 showed gross earnings of $7,444.50 and his affidavit shows 1951 earnings averaging about $143 a week. Plaintiff's average weekly earnings are $32.74. In the circumstances, the allowance of $5 a week for the plaintiff was inadequate. N.J.S.A. 2:50--37; Parmly v. Parmly, 125 N.J.Eq. 545, 5 A.2d 789 (E. & A. 1939), McLeod v. McLeod, 131 N.J.Eq. 44, 23 A.2d 545 (E. & A. 1941). The award to the wife should be increased to $20 a week, retroactive to December 10, 1951, the date of the Chancery Division order.

The denial of plaintiff's application for the expenses of an eye...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Dunne v. Dunne
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • May 6, 1986
    ...careful examination and weighing of all of the essential facts. Tancredi v. Tancredi, supra 101 N.J.Super. at 261 ; Liss v. Liss, 19 N.J.Super. 358, 361 (App.Div.1952); Federbush v. Federbush, 5 N.J.Super. 107, 110 (App.Div.1949). Moreover on an application to determine the amount of arrear......
  • Ribner v. Ribner
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • May 2, 1996
    ...at 141, 436 A.2d 955 (citing Tancredi v. Tancredi, 101 N.J.Super. 259, 261, 244 A.2d 139 (App.Div.1968); Liss v. Liss, 19 N.J.Super. 358, 361, 88 A.2d 526 (App.Div.1952); Federbush v. Federbush, 5 N.J.Super. 107, 110, 68 A.2d 473 (App.Div.1949)) (emphasis See also Kreuzer v. Kreuzer, 230 N.......
  • Weitzman v. Weitzman
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • October 27, 1988
    ...561, 393 A.2d 593 (App.Div.1978); Tancredi v. Tancredi, 101 N.J.Super. 259, 261, 244 A.2d 139 (App.Div.1968); Liss v. Liss, 19 N.J.Super. 358, 361, 88 A.2d 526 (App.Div.1952); Federbush v. Federbush, 5 N.J.Super. 107, 110, 68 A.2d 473 (App.Div.1949); Madden v. Madden, 136 N.J.Eq. 132, 136, ......
  • C. v. R.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • April 23, 1979
    ...equitable estoppel or laches presented. Tancredi v. Tancredi, 101 N.J.Super. 259, 244 A.2d 139 (App.Div.1968); Liss v. Liss, 19 N.J.Super. 358, 88 A.2d 526 (App.Div.1952). Child support during minority is a continuous duty of both parents. Federbush v. Federbush, 5 N.J.Super. 107, 68 A.2d 4......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT