Richard M. Muglia, Esq.

I’ve always been interested in protecting the interest of children. Sometime the parents forget that the actions they take during a divorce can hurt their child, and that the divorce is putting great strain on the child. My first thought when we get a case is to always see if the parents are looking out for their children.

I am proud every time we settle a case. It is always best for the parties to cooperate with one another, and that they come to a mutual understanding. If the parties can do that, I am always happy because they will more likely cooperate with each other in the future, and live their lives.

My favorite moments are when a client thanks me at the end of their case. I can tell they are more at ease, and that’s when I know I truly helped them.

I spent a good deal of my childhood in Nutley, and enjoy the people, the parks, and the mom-and-pop store aesthetic.

Eight year marriage with limited financial issues, neither party earning substantial income, high conflict custody issues with two children under 5.

Client’s issue: The client’s spouse would not agree to 50/50 custody of the two minor children, despite the parties having similar work schedules and both parties living in the same town post-divorce.

Our approach: We advised the client that custody starts at 50/50 and it was the spouse’s burden to prove that 50/50 was not in the children’s best interest. As both parties lived in the marital home, both had equal access to the children. The client provided proof of his ability and desire to care for the children, and provide them with proper accommodations after the divorce. Without an agreement, this would force the issue of custody to go to trial and/or require a Best Interest Expert to be retained.

Result achieved: The spouse balked at paying the significant fees associated with trial and/or an expert and agreed to 50/50 parenting time.

Client seeking downward modification of his child support obligation due to loss of employment

Client’s issue: Despite losing his employment six months prior and being unable to find employment in the same field providing him substantially similar income, client’s former spouse would not agree to downward modification.

Our approach: Prior to filing an application, a detailed description of the client’s efforts to obtain employment, along with all proofs, were provided to the adversary. The adversary was put on notice that there was a substantial change of circumstances warranting downward modification of child support, and that the client would seek fees if he was forced to file an application with the Court.

Result achieved: The client’s former spouse agreed to enter into a consent order downwardly modifying child support, saving the client from having to file an application with the Court.

Client seeking termination of alimony due to impending retirement

Client’s issue: At the time of filing, the client was 67 years of age and was retiring at the end of the year. His former spouse would not agree to terminate his alimony upon his retirement.

Our approach: Following the factors as set forth in NJSA 2A:34-23, a detailed and well supported application was filed with the Court.

Result achieved: The Court found that the client had prima facie showing of changed circumstances and the parties were sent to mediation to finalize the matter. The client was able to have his alimony obligation terminated after paying a small lump sum payment to his former spouse.

Short term marriage where the major marital asset was a home

Client’s issue: Both parties contributed toward the down payment, but the client contributed significantly more. Despite this, the adversary sought equal division of the equity in the home and would not come to an agreement.

Our approach: The parties agreed to an informal exchange of documents, wherein the client provided proofs of where the premarital funds came from and that those same funds were used for the down payment. Work was kept to a minimum, as the adversary would not agree to a reasonable settlement, until the parties were ordered to attend an Early Settlement Panel.

Result achieved: The Panel, a neutral third party, advised the adversary that her position was not reasonable, and that our client’s position was correct. Shortly thereafter, the parties entered an agreement wherein each party received the down payment back and shared in the remaining equity 50/50.