Ostrow v. Ostrow

3 Citing cases

  1. Lepis v. Lepis

    83 N.J. 139 (N.J. 1980)   Cited 950 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a party must clearly demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact before a hearing is necessary"

    Acheson, 24 N.J. Misc. 133 (Ch. 1946); (3) illness, disability or infirmity arising after the original judgment, e.g., Kirshbaum v.Kirshbaum, 129 N.J. Eq. 429 (E A 1941); Limpert v. Limpert, 119 N.J. Super. 438 (App.Div. 1972); see Ostrow v. Ostrow, 59 N.J. Super. 299, 305-306 (App.Div. 1960); (4) the dependent spouse's loss of a house or apartment, Jackson v. Jackson, 140 N.J. Eq. 124 (E A 1947); McLeod v. McLeod, 131 N.J. Eq. 44 (E A 1942);

  2. Shaw v. Shaw

    138 N.J. Super. 436 (App. Div. 1976)   Cited 102 times
    Holding a plenary hearing is only required when the submissions show there is a genuine and substantial factual dispute regarding the welfare of a child

    We are satisfied from our study of the entire record that the judge properly exercised his discretion in ordering increased support for the children. See Martindell v. Martindell, 21 N.J. 341, 355 (1956); Ostrow v. Ostrow, 59 N.J. Super. 299, 303 (App.Div. 1960). The support awarded was "fit, reasonable and just" in the circumstances.

  3. Howell v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co.

    130 N.J. Super. 350 (App. Div. 1974)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that irrespective of whether the interests of the plaintiff and her husband in the destroyed property are deemed to be joint or several, "`[t]he significant factor is that the responsibility or liability for the fraud here, the arson is several and separate rather than joint, and the husband's fraud cannot be attributed or imputed to the wife who is not implicated therein'"

    Accordingly, plaintiff had a one-half interest in the personal property and the court below properly awarded her $6,750 to cover her share in the loss thereof. Cf. Eberhard v. Eberhard, 4 N.J. 535, 555 (1950); Ostrow v. Ostrow, 59 N.J. Super. 299, 304 (App.Div. 1960). Defendant relies on N.J.S.A. 37:2-14 providing that the "paraphernalia of a married woman, being the suitable ornaments and wearing apparel of a married woman, which have come to her through her husband during marriage, shall be her separate property."