Court Denied the Partitioning of Real Property
Michelle Herman v. Anthony Lamanna, Sr.
Docket No. A-0049-21
Decided September 7, 2022
Submitted by New Jersey Family Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark.
In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey affirmed the trial court’s order denying the partitioning of real property and granting a money judgment to Plaintiff. In this matter, the parties began dating in 1997 and had a child together in 2002. The Defendant purchased a home in his name alone, and the parties lived in Defendant’s residence for seven years. The Plaintiff contributed $350 per month for home maintenance and child-related expenses. The parties had their second child in 2006. In 2009, the Plaintiff purchased a home in her name alone, and the parties lived in that residence for the last seven years of their relationship and also shared monthly living expenses. The Defendant kept the rental income from his own home, and the parties subsequently separated in 2017.
The Plaintiff sought repayment of the money Defendant had borrowed from her, income tax refunds he took from her, and credit card charges. Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking repayment of the money he spent on her house or an interest in the house. After the conclusion of the trial, the trial court noted that it had found the Plaintiff credible and the Defendant not credible. The trial court found that the funds Defendant had contributed were to support the children, declined to partition Plaintiff’s home, and rejected a constructive trust. Additionally, the trial court found that the Plaintiff gifted the income tax refunds to the Defendant but Defendant forged Plaintiff’s signature and was responsible for loans she had given him.
At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients for appeals in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining to the partitioning of real property and the various issues that come about as a result. We work hard to ensure that our clients receive exceptional representation in order for them to receive the most favorable outcome in their case as a result.
We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing a similar situation to that of either party in this case, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic County, Bergen County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Essex County, Gloucester County, Hudson County, Hunterdon County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Morris County, Ocean County, Passaic County, Salem County, Somerset County, Sussex County, Union County, and Warren County and any town including Audubon, Gloucester City, Oaklyn, Audubon Park, Gloucester Township, Pennsauken, Barrington, Haddon Heights, Pine Hill, Bellmawr, Haddon Township, Pine Valley, Berlin Borough, Haddonfield, Runnemede, Berlin Township, Hi-Nella, Somerdale, Brooklawn, Laurel Springs, Stratford, Camden, Lawnside, Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Lindenwold, Waterford, Chesilhurst, Magnolia, Winslow, Clementon, Merchantville, Woodlynne, Collingswood, Mt. Ephraim, and Gibbsboro.