Supreme Court Releases Man Jailed As Alimony, Child Support Deadbeat

, New Jersey Law Journal

   | 41 Comments

The state Supreme Court orders the release of a Hunterdon County man who had been jailed for more than eight weeks for falling behind in his alimony and child support payments and for failing to pay arrears.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to LexisAdvance®.

Continue to LexisAdvance®

Not a LexisAdvance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via LexisAdvance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Summator

    State Supreme Court order lays out conditions for alimony payer's release: Arbeit macht frei.

  • Reformer

    Lets not loose sight of the issue, ok, maybe she is disabled maybe she isn't...but who needs $8000 a month to ensure their basic needs are provided for? And why should she be able to live at a higher standard of living than he is able to live at....did he cause her disability? And why is her maintenance award so large while the child support is so minimal? Shouldn't his first responsibility be for his child?? The laws/guidelines or whatever they are DO need to be reviewed, revised & updated to reflect today's world & the people that live in it. She opposed his release from jail, but in jail how would he be able to provide her the financial support she needed? Seems to me that this man is only being "punished" through all avenues and that is really all the ex wife is interested in. Once my ex was behind on his child support which was paid through the states disbursement department, therefore they were going to suspend his drivers license. I had to go to the courthouse & complete paperwork to remove the requirement that he had to pay his child support through this venue and ensure that his drivers license was NOT suspended. If it had been suspended, how exactly would that benefit my son? How would he be able to get to work without a license, we do not live in an area that public transportation, walking or riding a bike could fulfill the need to get to and from work. I DID not want or receive Alimony, I don't understand the logic behind why anyone would, maybe some bridge the gap to help transition, but why continue to be chained to an ex financially? Child support yes, Alimony (specifically permanent) NO! Move on & start a new life, especially this woman - SHE initiated & wanted the divorce, so why would she want to have to keep fighting with this man into all eternity? She should have just stayed married to him as in reality she still is. Maybe she learned of a way to get all his hard earned income for herself without him having any say in how it is spent, so she gets to have the milk for free without cooking & cleaning & taking care of the cow. She has all the benefits of being married to him financially and has none of the wifely duties or responsibilities, doesn't have to listen to him snoring, do his laundry, or debate their weekend plans....sounds like I just answered my own question as to why one would want to be chained to an ex financially.

  • Reformer

    Lets not loose sight of the issue, ok, maybe she is disabled maybe she isn't...but who needs $8000 a month to ensure their basic needs are provided for? And why should she be able to live at a higher standard of living than he is able to live at....did he cause her disability? And why is her maintenance award so large while the child support is so minimal? Shouldn't his first responsibility be for his child?? The laws/guidelines or whatever they are DO need to be reviewed, revised & updated to reflect today's world & the people that live in it. She opposed his release from jail, but in jail how would he be able to provide her the financial support she needed? Seems to me that this man is only being "punished" through all avenues and that is really all the ex wife is interested in. Once my ex was behind on his child support which was paid through the states disbursement department, therefore they were going to suspend his drivers license. I had to go to the courthouse & complete paperwork to remove the requirement that he had to pay his child support through this venue and ensure that his drivers license was NOT suspended. If it had been suspended, how exactly would that benefit my son? How would he be able to get to work without a license, we do not live in an area that public transportation, walking or riding a bike could fulfill the need to get to and from work. I DID not want or receive Alimony, I don't understand the logic behind why anyone would, maybe some bridge the gap to help transition, but why continue to be chained to an ex financially? Child support yes, Alimony (specifically permanent) NO! Move on & start a new life, especially this woman - SHE initiated & wanted the divorce, so why would she want to have to keep fighting with this man into all eternity? She should have just stayed married to him as in reality she still is. Maybe she learned of a way to get all his hard earned income for herself without him having any say in how it is spent, so she gets to have the milk for free without cooking & cleaning & taking care of the cow. She has all the benefits of being married to him financially and has none of the wifely duties or responsibilities, doesn't have to listen to him snoring, do his laundry, or debate their weekend plans....sounds like I just answered my own question as to why one would want to be chained to an ex financially.

  • rheumatologist

    Please review the description for "child care - private home" - #62041 in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. This from O'Net, the Occupational Information Network, which was designed, developed, and tested under the leadership of the US Department of Labor. There is also a description there for paralegal and legal assistant. These descriptions elaborate on what it takes to do these jobs.

    In the comments, there is an assertion of "physical fragile", "intractable headaches", "other central nervous system symptoms", "inoperable" and "dissolving hand tendons", "subluxed (dislocated) hip", need to "conserve energy", as well as information in a succesful application for social security disablity.

    It is not unreasonable to question whether these impairments in the above paragraph interfere with being fully there for a teenage child.

  • A. Norris

    "Rheumatologist" : regarding your post re the social security administration's characterizations of "child care" as "light work" and "legal analyst" as "sedentary work" ...Where is your authority for that information? where is your authority for the conclusion that Ms. Waldorf was a "legal analyst"? I suggest you ask your friend Mr. Waldorf, for a copy of the Judgment of Divorce and the findings of fact/conclusions of law and read the section on custody.

    What is a "legal analyst" anyway? Where is the authority for any of your ridiculous conclusions? Were you given a copy of the four-page opinion issued by the Administrative Law judge who made the determination of Disability in Ms. Waldorf's case, after the Social Security Administration's own medical experts conceded that due to the extent of Ms. Waldorf disability, she was not gainfully employable in any capacity? Having custody of one's child does not require a determination that you are gainfully employable. You seem to be implying that all disabled people should have their children taken from them. You think that because Ms. Waldorf's illness is such that she is physically fragile and she suffers from unpredictable intractable headaches and other central nervous system symptoms, that she should have her 16 year old taken away from her when she is a good and loving parent, her son is thriving in her care, is happy, popular, loved by his teachers and friends, and at the top of his class? (no...she cannot physically clean her house, but she can carefully conserve her energy to devote every functional hour she has to nurturing and caring for and raising the parties' child, to the best of her ability.) I will not get into the court's custody determination, but I will say that your absurd attempt to argue Ms. Waldorf is either gainfully employable or should be forced to give up her 16 year old, one of the other, sounds discriminatory and is based on ignorant and false presumptions. The parties' son is 16..... He is not an infant. Again, you don't sound like a rheumatologist....at best you sound like professional workers' comp expert, not a caregiver. You are clearly not qualified to assess what is in the best interest of a child, even a child of a disabled parent.

  • A. Norris

    To "rheumatologist": regarding your information on how Ms. Waldorf as a disabled person might have gained access to Mr. Waldorf's 401(k) early, without penalty, Mr. Waldorf made sure that would never happen because he secretly cashed out his 401k in direct violation of court order & absconded with the money .....he then violated additional court orders issued by Judge Bartlett to immediately pay Ms. Waldorf 1/2 of the wrongfully dissipated 401K, but Mr. Waldorf refused. Apparently he was willing to violate multiple court orders AND suffer the penalty for early withdrawal rather than let Ms. Waldorf have any of it. This is only one of countless examples of bad faith exhibited by Mr. Waldorf during the course of this divorce.

    Just an observation : I thought you said you were medical doctor, not a financial analyst or an accountant?

  • A. Norris

    To "rheumatologist": regarding your information on how Ms. Waldorf as a disabled person might have gained access to Mr. Waldorf's 401(k) early, without penalty, Mr. Waldorf made sure that would never happen because he secretly cashed out his 401k in direct violation of court order & absconded with the money .....he then violated additional court orders issued by Judge Bartlett to immediately pay Ms. Waldorf 1/2 of the wrongfully dissipated 401K, but Mr. Waldorf refused. Apparently he was willing to violate multiple court orders AND suffer the penalty for early withdrawal rather than let Ms. Waldorf have any of it. This is only one of countless examples of bad faith exhibited by Mr. Waldorf during the course of this divorce.

    Just an observation : I thought you said you were medical doctor, not a financial analyst or an accountant?

  • rheumatologist

    one more comment - were either Waldorf aware that a disabled person can access a 401(k) before age 59 1/2 without penalty?

    The financially astute way to confiscate Mr. Waldorf's 401(k) would have been to qdro it to Ms. Waldorf, There would have been no taxes and no penalties and she would then have access to about $20,000 annually (if the 401(k)'s value was about $400,000) as permanent maintenance.

  • rheumatologist

    again, time for clarification - the social security administration considers child care and housework "light work". The job of legal analyst is "sedentary work". In general, as quoted on the social security web-site - if some one can do light work, they are also considered capable of sedentary work. Claiming to be able to do the light work of raising child and claiming to be unable to do sedentary work, does appear to be a contradiction. Also, some one collecting SSDI with a dependent child, collects additional money from social security (about 1/2 the SSDI amount) for that child.

    Again, back to my two decades of experience taking care of patients - I am often told that it is easier to do sedentary work than stay home with children. Often, a fair amount of the child care is delegated to the healthy spouse.

  • J.w.

    Bruce Eden: "different entities"?? not different people? Is that some type of legal disclaimer? that's funny. Still defaming Ms. Waldorf about her health and blatantly lying about what her living situation is and what she drives?! So desperately despicable. Blast Mr. Waldorf how? By telling the truth?! By correcting the record?!?! every time Mr. Waldorf opens his mouth, he chips away at a few followers, ..... like when he lied on nj.com about successfully evading the Judge's bench warrant for months and months with the help of a Hunterdon county Detective, whom he lied to about there being a "pending bankruptcy petition" in April and May of 2012, convincing the detective to give Mr. Waldorf a break and put the warrant on the back burner. He just threw that detective under the bus after manipulating him into risking his job by tacitly agreeing to ignore Judge Mawla's Order for months? To make matters worse, there was no pending Bankruptcy petition in April and May of 2012..it was not until June 12, 2012, five days after the Judge issued a SECOND MORE STRONGLY WORDED BENCH WARRANT specifically directing the Sheriff's office to arrest Mr. Waldorf a.s.a.p., that he quickly filed for Chapter 13, for the sole purpose of attempting tonavoid his support arrears. problem was, it was fraught with lies and, again, Mr. Waldorf refused to comply with the requirements of Chap.13, so it was tossed. I doubt that detective will be as sympathetic next time. Trial's over, Mr. Eden.... It was a sensational headline to get nj.com to publish the misrepresentation that Mr. Waldorf was jailed because his alimony obligation exceeds his income... Problem is, it is a blatant lie. Bit by bit, it's all coming out. Bit by bit, interested people will see that Mr. Waldorf is no victim. Since his release from coercive incarceration, he has already violated the conditional Stay issued by the Supreme Court. Among other things, he has decided he no longer has to pay child support at all... Since November, Mr. Waldorf has paid zero in child support. People like Tom Leustek of NJAR are fighting to change alimony laws, but they are not going to come to Mr. Waldorf's defense for refusing to pay his child support. He was given a huge break by the Supreme Court when they conditionally released him from jail pending the appeal, but he can never do what is required of him, not even when ordered to do so by the highest court in the State. For Mr. Waldorf to think it's okay to simply stop paying child support all together, when the Stay of incarceration applies to alimony only and his child support obligation is $64/ week, is beyond absurd.

  • Bruce Eden, Dads Against Discrimination

    A. Norris:



    Please already with your fake righteous indignation about talking about Ms. Waldorf's alleged "private life". Her "private life" is a matter of public record the instant she or her attorneys filed the paperwork (complaint, motions, orders to show cause, etc.) and paid the filing fee. And, it was O.K. to blast Mr. Waldorf publicly; but it's hypocritical to claim that Ms. Waldorf is entitled to her "privacy". By the way, "Dadzrites" is a different entity.



    Ms. Waldorf claims all types of maladies and disabilities and you claim that her condition is debilitating. However, as a number of writers who know Ms. Waldorf and the case have said, she submitted several hundreds of pages of legal documents to the Supreme court and lower courts in opposition to Mr. Waldorf's papers. The Court even said she is a fit parent to clean, cook and supervise her son, as well as drive him around. This doesn't sound so disabled to me. In fact, the NJ Appellate Division recently ruled that a disability approval letter from the Social Security Administration is not sufficient enough to prove inability to work.



    Given Ms. Waldorf's propensity for seriously stretching the truth and portraying the "victim", I found it disingenuous that she is capable of doing all of these things (as a former legal analyst), and the party who claims "poor mouth" but lives on a 7-acre estate and drives a late model Benz. No one has refuted that alleged "tale", have they?

  • Dadzrites

    And what makes you think the judge is right, credible, honest, unbiased, and competent?

  • J.w.

    Bruce Eden/Dadzrites: you continue to misrepresent and misstate the Judge's multiple page analysis of Mr. Waldorf's "income", and you have purposefully done so to support your false statement that Mr. Waldorf's alimony obligation exceeds his income. You are quoted in several papers highlighting Mr. Waldorf's tax returns as the basis for your own determination of Mr. Waldorf's income, even though YOU KNOW FULL WELL that the judge clearly explained why Mr. Waldorf's tax returns are completely unrealiable, particularly after 2006 (the judge found that 2006 was the ONLY year Mr. Waldorf filed an accurate tax return; in 2009 Mr. Waldorf illegally deducted pendente lite support paid of $45,000, and conveniently omitted his W2 form; in other years Mr. Waldorf declared himself "Head of Household" when he was separated and their child always resided with Ms. Waldorf, to highlight only a few of the many "problems" with his returns). Mr. Waldorf's recent fraudulent bankruptcy filing, which was thrown out in part for failing to truthfully declare all his income, claimed he resided in a two person household (with a gross median income of $65,000), purposefully leaving out his wealthy girlfriend's income, while attempting to get the break afforded one who lives in a two-person household on one income.... And his own income figures aren't even reliable....Mr. Eden: you have the transcripts and continue to misstate the facts....your credibility is zero as is Mr. Waldorf's.

  • J.w.

    "Rheumatologist": How ignorant, not to mention blatantly libelous. Ms. Waldorf's rheumatologist, one of the premiere rheumatologist's in the country, has already causally linked Ms. Waldorf's hip deterioration to her lupus as Mr. Waldorf already knows. You are, in fact, recklessly opining without ever having seen or examined Ms. Waldorf - clearly a breach of medical ethics, assuming you are a doctor, which I strongly doubt. Ms. Waldorf's rheumatologist specifically referred her to a nationally renowned orthopedic surgeon in NY who concurred in her rheumatologist's diagnosis and will be operating on her. He is an orthopedic surgeon specializing in difficult hip replacements necessitated by progressive S.L.E., such as that Ms. Waldorf faces because of the dissolving and hyper laxity of her tendons; in fact he operated on a former head of the national Lupus foundation whose first replacement failed, prompting him to invent a specialized device to provide added stability to deal with the same tendon deterioration from which ms. Waldorf and similar Lupus patients suffer. This orthopedic surgeon operated on Walter Cronkite a decade or so prior to his death, so I am sure his opinion and that of her equally well respected rheumatologist, would have held far more weight with the court than your baseless nonsense would. The trial is over "Mr. rheumatologist..." Mr. Waldorf conceded the issue of Ms. Waldorf's permanent disability; therefore he cannot re-argue it in his appeal. He may try, but they won't allow mr. Waldorf to retry issues on appeal that were not in dispute at trial. Mr. Waldorf should focus on following the only avenue available to him: His appeal. If he later comes upon proof that Ms. Waldorf's condition has improved, he can file a motion for modification of alimony downward. Why don't you pool together some $ and have a private investigator follow her around for awhile? Neither Ms. Waldorf nor her highly respected physicians have defrauded anyone, as Mr. Waldorf is well aware. Mr. Waldorf knew Ms. Waldorf was sick, though in remission, when the parties met. Ms. Waldorf loved her work, and in fact worked her entire adult life since she could work no longer. Mr. Waldorf was well aware she was chronically ill when he moved himself into her house and asked her to marry him. Ms. Waldorf has no plan to indulge your prurient interest by posting pictures of her hands for you to mock her. I hope she and her attorney will take the necessary steps to hold you and others accountable for your libel per se. So, you are speaking on behalf of NJAR in posting your defamatory accusations against Ms. Waldorf? that's good to know. it is libel per se to mock someone's disability not to mention, a violation of her privacy rights under Federal law. If you think hiding behind a fake name on the internet allows you disseminate misinformation and defame Ms. Waldorf or her attorney, you are wrong!

  • rheumatologist

    A. Norris - I am neither Mr. Waldorf nor Mr. Eden and I see patients full-time. I have been active in the alimony reform movement and have far more than a minor interest in this case. My ex lied in court and exaggerated inability to be self supporting to receive unjust enrichment and an uneven distribution of marital assets at the expense of the children's education. I have walked in Mr. Waldorf's shoes.
    Please provide a picture of Ms. Waldorf's hands so that her alleged deformities can be viewed. Subluxation of the hip joint is ordinarily associated with hypermobility syndrome, not lupus and this can be repaired and/or replaced to render a usable and less painful or painfree joint. Simply receiving "oral chemotherapy" does not render a patient permanently unable to work, as many, many cancer survivors can vouch.
    Ms. Waldorf's disability can be verified with functional capacity testing, neuropsyche testing, an independent third party exam and a trial of sedentary employment. Additional lawyer hyperbole does not serve to further anything other than your billable hours.
    If I truly were Mr. Waldorf or Eden, my thoughts would have been shared in prior litigation.

  • A. Norris

    To: "rheumatologist"

    you are not a practicing physician, as no physician ....even one "out of state" (whatever that means) would make such misrepresentations. Since you have no interest in this case, what's your name, "doctor?" Ms. Waldorf, who was diagnosed with central nervous system S.L.E. in 1991, did work full time for many years after her diagnosis, until her disease progressed to the point where she could only work part time, until her disease further progressed to the point where she had to stop working. For your information, then condition of her hands is inoperable and clearly noticeable from across a room....even a courtroom.....her right hip has lost all cartilage between the femur and hip socket, and is nearly subluxed. She requires a long overdue replacement. She suffers from intractible headaches and other central nervous system symptoms and has had to undergo oral chemotherapy at times for kidney involvement. Mr. Waldorf/Mr. Eden, your violation of Ms. Waldorf's privacy and your sad attempts to attack her in the face of the obvious, is disgraceful. You have a child who is old enough to consider...why don't you start considering him?

  • A. Norris

    To: "rheumatologist"

    you are not a practicing physician, as no physician ....even one "out of state" (whatever that means) would make such misrepresentations. Since you have no interest in this case, what's your name, "doctor?" Ms. Waldorf, who was diagnosed with central nervous system S.L.E. in 1991, did work full time for many years after her diagnosis, until her disease progressed to the point where she could only work part time, until her disease further progressed to the point where she had to stop working. For your information, then condition of her hands is inoperable and clearly noticeable from across a room....even a courtroom.....her right hip has lost all cartilage between the femur and hip socket, and is nearly subluxed. She requires a long overdue replacement. She suffers from intractible headaches and other central nervous system symptoms and has had to undergo oral chemotherapy at times for kidney involvement. Mr. Waldorf/Mr. Eden, your violation of Ms. Waldorf's privacy and your sad attempts to attack her in the face of the obvious, is disgraceful. You have a child who is old enough to consider...why don't you start considering him?

  • rheumatologist

    To A. Norris. I am a board certified practicing rheumatologist in another state. I have over 2 decades and 100,000 office visits experience treating patients. I have been an expert witness between 1 to 2 dozen times in my career. You greatly exaggerate how lupus really affects patients. Almost all of my patients maintain employment with lupus and have for many years. If Ms. Waldorf's hand tendons were truly dissolved, she would have visible "from across the room" crooked hands. If her hands look normal to the observer, then the tendons are there holding everything in place.

    As I am not Ms. Waldorf's treating physician, I am not breaching a standard of care. While, I have not read her records or examined her, I can comment from my experience treating patients with these disorders.

  • A. Norris

    To: "Rheumatologist" a/k/a John Waldorf or Bruce Eden. No physician would make such clearly ignorant statements about a disease, which has a myriad of presentations from skin disorders to blindness to intractable headaches, profound fatigue, central nervous system involvement, kidney failure or death. Mr. Waldorf, given the information recently sent to you by letter from Ms. Waldorf's long time treating physician, a nationally renowned rheumatologist in NY, your misrepresentations are particularly egregious. "Basic typing skills"? If you are a rheumatologist and have had the opportunity to look at Ms. Waldorf's hands, which reflect that her tendons have completely dissolved bilaterally, "basic typic skills" is a meaningless term. As you know, Mrs. Waldorf did not write a 200 page brief.... She wrote a 19 page response to which she attached the Judgment of Divorce, Judge Mawla's 234 page findings of fact/conclusions of law and five pages from John Waldorf's fraudulent Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing, showing that it was dismissed for his failure to file a feasible plan, failure to keep his support obligation current post petition, failure to represent his actual income accurately.

    If I am wrong and you really are a physician, isn't it a breach of the standard of care and medically unethical to diagnose or offer a medical opinion via hearsay information and without ever seeing the patient or reviewing her records?


  • rheumatologist

    all right - time for the rheumatologist to weigh in. I am a phsycian who specializes in treating lupus and "degenerative bone diseases". Yes, I do fill out disability papers for legitimate disability cases. However - a job as a legal analyst is sedentary work. Almost anyone can do sedentary work, no matter how bad their lupus or degenerative bone disease is. If Ms. Waldorf has the presence of mind, concentration and typing skills to write a coherant 200 page brief, than she is NOT DISABLED. You are allowed to work if you are collecting social security disablity - please read the new rules.

    There are rules about what is and what is not a legitimate disability - just look how workman's compensation and disability cases are adjudicated. Family court should abide by the same rules and not just make a "finding of fact" on whim and incomplete evidence.

    Ms. Waldorf should be investigated for fraud upon the court and fraud upon Mr. Waldorf. At some point, her demands rise to the level of extortion.

  • Princeton general practitioner

    Oh my God, what an injustice, why are ex-spouses jailed because they just can't pay? I cannot fathom why an ex spouse would ever deserve $2,000.00 a week under any circumstances!

  • John Waldorf

    I have requested that the author remove the "dead beat" from the title. I have over the last 5 years paid my ex-wife over $400,000 which does not a dead beat make. I have liquidated all of my retirement accounts to pay her pre divorce pendente lite. And the Court even made me liquidate my son's 529 account to pay her. This was clearly not fair to my son. As far as my alleged job dismissal, Mr. Booth if you will give me your e-mail address I will send you a copy of my severance contract which proves this point.

    Again, Ms. Detorres assertion that I voluntarily left my job is not supported by the facts and is slanderous. Ms. Detorres has an axe to grind because I filed a grievance against her with the ethics committee for steeling monies from me that were deposited into her attorney trust account. This is an active investigation and she admitted on the record that she stole these monies. Again, Mr Detores’ allegation that I lied in my bankruptcy filing is not supported by the facts and I am surprised that NJ Law Journal once again published this false allegation.

    Unfortunately the only dead beat here is my Ex-wife . She could work but chooses not to. She doesn’t even attempt to find a job. She is a legal analyst with a Law Degree from a Prestigious University and over the last five years has prepared 1000’s and 1000’s of pages in support of her positions in this divorce matter. This clearly proves that she could work as a legal analyst if she chose too. She has committed a fraud on the Social Security Administration and should not be receiving disability. She should accept responsibility for her own support and stop tormenting me emotionally and financially for the sake of our son. She is a very cunning and manipulating person who thinks the world owes her. She plays the complete and total victim very well and knows how to manipulate the Court System. She has sued her stock broker, her dentist, her second ex-husband and her dead fathers 2nd wife. She would do well to grow up and get a life and become a good example for our son rather than sitting back and feeling sorry for herself and sueing everyone.

  • John Waldorf

    I have requested that the author remove the "dead beat" from the title. I have over the last 5 years paid my ex-wife over $400,000 which does not a dead beat make. I have liquidated all of my retirement accounts to pay her pre divorce pendente lite. And the Court even made me liquidate my son's 529 account to pay her. This was clearly not fair to my son. As far as my alleged job dismissal, Mr. Booth if you will give me your e-mail address I will send you a copy of my severance contract which proves this point.

    Again, Ms. Detorres assertion that I voluntarily left my job is not supported by the facts and is slanderous. Ms. Detorres has an axe to grind because I filed a grievance against her with the ethics committee for steeling monies from me that were deposited into her attorney trust account. This is an active investigation and she admitted on the record that she stole these monies. Again, Mr Detores’ allegation that I lied in my bankruptcy filing is not supported by the facts and I am surprised that NJ Law Journal once again published this false allegation.

    Unfortunately the only dead beat here is my Ex-wife . She could work but chooses not to. She doesn’t even attempt to find a job. She is a legal analyst with a Law Degree from a Prestigious University and over the last five years has prepared 1000’s and 1000’s of pages in support of her positions in this divorce matter. This clearly proves that she could work as a legal analyst if she chose too. She has committed a fraud on the Social Security Administration and should not be receiving disability. She should accept responsibility for her own support and stop tormenting me emotionally and financially for the sake of our son. She is a very cunning and manipulating person who thinks the world owes her. She plays the complete and total victim very well and knows how to manipulate the Court System. She has sued her stock broker, her dentist, her second ex-husband and her dead fathers 2nd wife. She would do well to grow up and get a life and become a good example for our son rather than sitting back and feeling sorry for herself and sueing everyone.

  • John Waldorf

    I have requested that the author remove the "dead beat" from the title. I have over the last 5 years paid my ex-wife over $400,000 which does not a dead beat make. I have liquidated all of my retirement accounts to pay her pre divorce pendente lite. And the Court even made me liquidate my son's 529 account to pay her. This was clearly not fair to my son. As far as my alleged job dismissal, Mr. Booth if you will give me your e-mail address I will send you a copy of my severance contract which proves this point.

    Again, Ms. Detorres assertion that I voluntarily left my job is not supported by the facts and is slanderous. Ms. Detorres has an axe to grind because I filed a grievance against her with the ethics committee for steeling monies from me that were deposited into her attorney trust account. This is an active investigation and she admitted on the record that she stole these monies. Again, Mr Detores’ allegation that I lied in my bankruptcy filing is not supported by the facts and I am surprised that NJ Law Journal once again published this false allegation.

    Unfortunately the only dead beat here is my Ex-wife . She could work but chooses not to. She doesn’t even attempt to find a job. She is a legal analyst with a Law Degree from a Prestigious University and over the last five years has prepared 1000’s and 1000’s of pages in support of her positions in this divorce matter. This clearly proves that she could work as a legal analyst if she chose too. She has committed a fraud on the Social Security Administration and should not be receiving disability. She should accept responsibility for her own support and stop tormenting me emotionally and financially for the sake of our son. She is a very cunning and manipulating person who thinks the world owes her. She plays the complete and total victim very well and knows how to manipulate the Court System. She has sued her stock broker, her dentist, her second ex-husband and her dead fathers 2nd wife. She would do well to grow up and get a life and become a good example for our son rather than sitting back and feeling sorry for herself and sueing everyone.

  • JeffG

    The bottom line in this case is “Its All About Control.”

    The Waldorfs are no longer married. They are divorced. They have returned to being strangers to each other. They should have no further obligations to each other.

    But instead, once the wife gets a grasp on the cajones, she never wants to let go. Then she dupes the court by enlisting their assistance to tighten and twist her grasp.

    Its ludicrous to ask Mr. Waldorf to pay more than he earns to this stranger. The best thing the court can do now is just vacate all alimony.

    Don't worry ... the ex-Mrs. Waldorf won't starve ... aside from her Social Security Disability for a fictitious malingerer's disease, she will still be getting thousands in child support from Mr. Waldorf.

  • Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director, Dads Against Discrimination

    What is interesting is that Waldorf's ex-wife's attorney, Roseann DeTorres, says "John Waldorf is not the poster child for alimony reform", but falsely represented the facts when she said this.



    What is more important to note is that Judge Hany Mawla IS the "poster child for major Family Court reform & judicial reform, in general, in New Jersey because of what is all wrong with the judicary". With a stroke of the pen, Mawla turned the lights on the Family Court, and now the cockroaches in the judiciary and bar association are starting to scatter.

  • Dadzrites

    What everyone is avoiding is the 800-lb. gorilla in the room. Alimony is now being incorporated into child support funding where the state received Federal funding for awards, collections and enforcement of support at the end of every fiscal year. Under Title 42 U.S.C. §658(a) (a/k/a the Federal child support enforcement reimbursement incentive to the States), the Federal government gives the states anywhere from 66%-150%, or more, on every dollar the state orders, collects and enforces in child support. Alimony has now unlawfully been added to the equation to drive up those percentages and give the state more reimbursement incentive payments. At least a BILLION dollars, or more, is involved in this every year.This is taxpayer fraud!!!!!!!



    The reimbursement incentive money is sent to the State with no strings attached. And, where does this money go? Directly into the State's general treasury. And, who are the first people paid out of the general treasury? Judges (pensions & salaries), state employees like child support enforcement employees, law enforcement, politicians, et al. This is a major unconstitutional conflict-of-interest where you have judges and other state officials sitting on and/or adjudicating cases where they have a financial interest in the outcome of such cases. This, also, is taxpayer fraud!!!!!!



    However, and this is a big however, the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Tumey v. Ohio (1927), Ward v. Monroeville (1972), Gibson v. Berryhill (1973) and a host of other cases in the same line, held that judges cannot sit on cases where they have a financial interest in the outcome of such cases, otherwise it constitutes an unconstitutional conflict of interest, and the judge or public official must disqualify themselves from the case, or their orders are nullifed. In addition, they can be subjected to criminal official misconduct charges and/or impeachment.



    It is time to remove judges and others with direct interest in extracting/extorting monies from unsuspecting litigants and taxpayers, under threat of jail (which violates the Federal Anti-Peonage Statutes prohibiting peonage and forced labor; 18 U.S.C. §§1581 and 1589).



    There are some who will say that they will not be able to enforce support and/or alimony. That's not our problem. The state created the mess for profit and gain. The state must fix the problem. My suggestion is to empanel an unbiased group of people to handle child support and/or alimony issues, such as economists, vocational experts, psychologists, medical professionals, even a retired appellate or supreme court judge or two, to turn these matters into citizen review panels.



    Throwing people in jail to extract/extort more monies for the state's coffers is heinous, unconstitutional and emulates the Nazi regime. In fact, many Family Court judges could be compared to the Nazi "blood" judges under Hitler's regime. If one compares their actions and behavior, I would say we're not far off from bringing back the Third Reich through the New Jersey Family Courts.

  • Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director, Dads Against Discrimination

    Once again, the NJ Law Journal gets it wrong. I read the transcripts in this case and Judge Hany Mawla ruled that John Waldorf's best year was 2008 when he made $148,000. Later in the transcripts the judge said Waldorf's NET income was $6200 per month. Based on the facts, the Judge's ruling of "imputing" $2064 per week in alimony and child support was out of bounds and beyond reality. This was an egregious abuse of discretion that showed incompetence, lack of integrity and lack of impartiality by this judge.



    John Waldorf never made $200,000 in any year to warrant justifying the extreme amount of alimony he had to pay ($104,000 per year, when his net was less than $95,000 per year). Ten years of federal tax proved this. He was a civil engineer that worked in the field. The continuing false representations being made by the ex-wife's attorney, Roseann DeTorres, are slanderous and libelous. This is further evidenced by DeTorres and the ex-wife claiming Waldorf "quit his job", when the facts in the transcript say otherwise, and the judge agreed he did NOT quit his job.



    As for the other allegations that the ex-wife has custody of the 16-year old child, but has Lupus and degenerative bone disease, are contradictory. Judge Mawla said she was a fit parent that would clean, cook, & supervise the child, and drive the child around. But, a few pages later in the transcript, she is considered a pitiful sight with her Lupus and degenerative diseases. And, she was the only one who testified as to her condition. There was no medical testimony or proof she could not work in her career position as a legal analyst, where she earned a large salary. I remember seeing a recent case saying that a Social Security Disability approval letter is not sufficient evidence of being unable to work. There must be substantial medical evidence to support the inability to work. It is evident Ms. Waldorf quit her job just prior to the divorce to maximize her alimony & equitable distribution. I would bet that her attorney advised her of this illegal conduct and her attorney should be disbarred for it.



    What else the Law Journal article leaves out is that the ex-Mrs. Waldorf lives on a 7 acre estate in Hunterdon County, drives a large, late model Mercedes, and was divorced 3 other times from well-off men. Sounds to me like she does this as a second career.



    Waldorf is, indeed, the poster child for alimony reform, because this case shows the inherent biases of the courts against the male litigants when it comes to paying alimony, as well as paying child support, equitable distribution and being denied custody of the children in over 90% of all divorce cases.

  • Sheila Taylor

    The injustice served upon John Waldorf is utterly deplorable, as well as unbelievable. John was treated like a common criminal, held in prison long beyond any reasonable expectation, resulting in the loss of his job.
    It is unconscionable that the current, yet archaic legal system in NJ enables greedy and malevolent ex-spouses to be forever partnered. Although the marriage ends, lifetime alimony is forever!
    Mr. Booth's article is inaccurate. However, by continuing to attack John, the legal system has unwittingly made John the "poster child" for alimony reform, thus bringing attention to the greater public just how extreme and unreasonable the current NJ alimony laws are.
    Unfortunately, there are many other alimony payers, who fall into alimony arrears. Their reasons are not exciting vacations or hidden fortunes, but misfortunes, such as job loss/illness/disability. And although current NJ law provides for modification of alimony when there is a change in circumstance, in actuality it simply is not granted.
    New Jersey Alimony Reform (NJAR) and New Jersey Women for Alimony Reform (NJWAR) are two grass root organizations that have developed in response to the need for change in alimony laws. The members are dedicated to educating the public, so that the necessary legislative changes are enacted.
    Sheila Taylor, President of NJ Women for Alimony Reform

  • Divorced in Brick

    I know John and I know his story first hand. Family court makes a mockery of our justice system. The rules of evidence never come into play. You have a judge making decisions based upon political correctness and their "feelings". The idea of looking at evidence is such a foreign notion in family court.

    I am sure many have heard the story of the US Marine Jon Hammar being locked up by a corrupt Mexican court system and many say what a third world country they are. I have news for you take a look at NJ family courts, they run rough shod of peoples right every day. The sad part is that they are totally unaccountable for their actions. They disregard the rule of law as a matter of course.

    My advice to you John, don't waste you time or money in the kangaroo courts of NJ, flee to a real state and move for a change of venue in a state that respects the rights of its citizens.

  • brian

    As in my case old tax returns were used to determine the amount of alimony I should pay. I had become disabled and had current tax returns reflecting my change in income but the court chose to let opposing counsel use returns that were old. I think that at least current tax returns should be used. Another thing if you look at the amount of child support Mr. Waldorf has to pay it should raise a red flag with everyone. Child support is based on a specific formula. The alimony in this case is so out of line with the amount of child support that one has to wonder what made up financial circumstances was alimony based on and why alimony wasn't based on the same financial information as the child support award. It must be that 60 cents on every dollar the feds give out for support that is garnished and collected vi Title IV. There is no fairness in a system that has that kind of a conflict of interest. One more thing if a married man is allowed to seek different employment at a lower rate of pay then a divorced man should have the same right.

  • Tom Leustek

    The Waldorf story has gotten so much attention because he exemplifies the nightmare that all lifetime alimony payers live with. If they lose a job, become ill, have to take a pay cut, or must retire; alimony payers have no confidence that the New Jersey Family courts will do the right thing and adjust alimony to their new situation.

    They must live with the reality that petitioning the court for a modification will cost enormous sums for lawyers, with very little hope that relief will be granted. The difficulty of obtaining a modification based on changed circumstances is painfully detailed by Jeralyn Lawrence in her recent article in the New Jersey Family Lawyer.

    DeTorres, the plaintiff’s lawyer is quoted as saying that "John Waldorf is not the poster child for alimony reform," and "He voluntarily left his job in an effort to deliberately deny support to his wife and child." Whatever the specifics of the Waldorf case, one can be sure that the adversary lawyer, as a matter of course, would accuse the alimony payer of purposefully changing their circumstance to avoid paying support. It is the Catch-22 that alimony payers live with, the impossible task of proving a negative. The real issue with regard to alimony reform is what safeguards are in place to protect truthful and well-meaning citizens from being abused by the family court system? I personally would appreciate hearing from DeTorres in answer to my question.

    New Jersey Alimony Reform (http://njalimonyreform.org/) is a grass-roots organization helping to educate the public and legislators about unfairness in the family court system. Modification of alimony is only one of numerous areas of inequity, but it is an important one. In an intact family the burden of a job loss would be shared by everyone. After a divorce, only one person bears the entire burden, under penalty of jail. This fact causes many to question the fairness of the system. The integrity of the family law system is undermined when family lawyers dismiss the legitimate concerns of citizens.

  • John Waldorf

    MR BOOTH
    I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY CERTAIN ITEMS TODAY AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE REVISIONS AS WE TALKED ABOUT. I DO RESENT BEING LABEled AS A " DEADBEAT " DAD. THIS IS THE FURTHEST FROM THE TRUTH. I HAVE PAID MY EX WIFE, LISA Waldorf over $55000 this year alone and from 2007 until December of 2011 paid her over $350,000. This is hardly a deadbeat dad and I am asking you to remove that label. My ex-wife is a very knowlegable and capable Legal Analist who attended Case Western Reserve law school. She chooses not to work and to be a dependent person. Just last week she prepared a 200 page responce on a motion to the NJ Supreme Court clearly demonstrating her legal capability. Ms Detorres' statements are not backed up by facts. Just to set the record straight from, a factural standpoint, I did not purposefully quit my employment, I lost my job through a business realignment and would gladly furnish you with a copy of my Severance Agreement should you so request. THE court ordered that I pay 100% of my income in alimony not taking into account income taxes, my sons health insurance premiums or money to keep a roof over my head or food to eat. Judge Mawla issued a Judgement of Divorce which was impossible to comply with. As far as my bankruptcy filing, again Ms Detorres is devoid of the facts. My application was not thrown out. I simply decided that it would be better to file it after the Appelllate Courf ruled on my appeal. I did not lie about my assets or liabilities. The filing is a matter of public record and I stand by it. Judge Lyons never said that it appeared that i was lying and Ms Detorres should furnish the transcripts to prove her allegation. This is pure slander. This case screams for alimony reform. There should be mandatory guidelines for alimony just like there are for child support. Judicial descretion leads to violation of right to due process and inserts personal and political bias into a system which should be fair and impartial.

  • Betty Jones

    Deadbeat eh? How can he be a deadbeat when he was paying thousands of dollars every month? I say lawyers are the deadbeats for allowing this state to become like it is without a fight from the BAR. Deadbeat is the term used to turn the public against Fathers no matter whether the child support is paid or not. If the Adult support is not paid in full there is hell to pay. Why don't you greedy lawyers get off your duff and do something constuctive for this state. You never know when the same crap might come your way. Oh, I forgot, you guys are in cahoots with the judges so it will never happen to you!

  • Broken

    Echo infant in my comments below is supposed to be exorbitant. (Darn auto correct)

  • Broken

    NJ family Courts destroy families by ordering men and women to pay more in alimony than they can possibly earn. Then they haul them into court, label them deadbeats, destroy their credit, put them in jail and still expect them to pay echo infant amounts of money. Friends and loved ones end up loaning monies to keep these men and women free. Modifications which are supposedly available, are routinely denied. In fact of all the alimony payers that I know, not one has ever had their alimony reduced. This despite the fact hat the economy is in the toilet! Men and women are forced to leave the state.
    Where is the fairness?
    Where is equality?
    Where is the the right to retire?
    Absurd amounts that John Waldorf and thousands of others must pay are obscene! Ordinary men and women are treated as criminals for earning less than a crazy judge imputed income amount.
    Why has the NJ Bar Assn. allowed this to happen?. It certainly does not improve the perception the public has of lawyers.
    What are you going to do to rectify these injustices???

  • Zarkova

    So if John Waldorf reaches out to you - you will post his side? You did forget to mention that he was paying the child support, and $5000 a month in alimony! BEFORE HE WAS ARRESTED! So "dead beat" is soooo wrong. I love the dramatics of lawyers. Do you guys have to take acting classes when in law school?

  • JeffG

    ... and ... To New Jersey Law Journal:

    How dare you call John Waldorf a "deadbeat?" Where would you expect him to get money that he doesn't have? Are you going to loan it to him? Of course not. The court has made him such a poor financial risk that NO ONE would give him any money.

    Would you hire him? Of course not. What kind of performance could you expect from an employee who does not get to keep any rewards from his own labor.

    So, the court has made him a pariah, and now you blame the victim by calling him a "deadbeat?" Maybe John Waldorf is beat dead, but not a deadbeat.

  • JeffG

    Dadzrites fails to acknowledge that alimony reduces taxable income for the payer, and is taxable for the recipient. It doesn't matter if Mr. Waldorf is ordered to pay more in alimony than his net income. His net taxable income is reduced by the amount of alimony he pays.

    Nevertheless, the Waldorf case is an extreme example of judicial bias against and abuse of men in family court. What purpose is served by bankrupting an ex-husband and driving him away from his child to support a malingering ex-wife who is already gaming and abusing the Social Security Disability system?

    The Waldorf case is an extreme case, but it points out the need for family law reform. This needs to be done legislatively. We have child support guidelines, but no alimony guidelines. No legislator ever voted on the child support guidelines. They are by edict of the chief justice, who does not answer to anyone.

    The legislature, with a responsibility to the voters, should now take responsibility for both alimony and child support. I say start by getting the people's opinion in public meetings throughout the state.

  • Richard

    I don't think alimony reform is based on the Waldorf's case, but it shows the extreme extent the court will go to force a person who has no job to be punished. By this court's actions, Waldorf lost his job and is most likely unable to obtain another comparable job. How does that help both parties.

    And why would any court order more monthly payments than what can be paid is beyond me. Maybe the judge needs to wake up and realize that "a bird in the hand is better than one in the bush." But I guess the courts believe a bird in jail is worth more than one working and trying to make payments.

    The case also shows why the state legislature needs to step in and place some guidelines on the process. We have judge-based decisions that have set up the system now being interpreted by the courts and the courts are ultimately able to punish a person. Something is wrong with this picture.

    Someone needs to realize the importance of a public debate about this issue and the development of rational laws.

  • Dadzrites

    According to the transcripts of the case, Judge Mawla said that Waldorf's best year was $148,000 per year gross income. This is verified by 10 years of federal tax returns beginning in 2000. In fact, Mawla said that Waldorf's net pay was $6180 per month, but he was going to order a "robust" amount of alimony that would cause Waldorf to retire, and he (the judge) would put out a bench warrant for his arrest for not paying the amounts in full.



    Just based on the $148,000 gross pay each year, Waldorf's NET income would have been between $90-$95,000 annually. Yet he was being ordered to pay $104,000 in alimony per year and $3300 per year in child support. In other words, Waldorf was paying over 115% of his NET income. He could no longer afford an attorney, filed several motions to reduce the amount, and filed a notice of appeal, which briefs were coming due.



    Based on Mawla's statement that Waldorf was earning around $6200 per month NET income, that would have made his yearly net income of $74,400. Based on this calculation, Waldorf is paying 145% of his NET income.



    What the article doesn't tell you is that Waldorf's wife, Lisa, was married 3 times before, owns a 6.92 acre estate in Hunterdon County, and drives a late-model, large Mercedes Benz. Claims that she has Lupus and is too disabled to work are belied by the fact that Judge Mawla claimed she was a fit parent that would cook and clean for their teenage, college-bound son, supervise him and drive him wherever he needed to go.



    Ms. Waldorf also spent many hours at a computer and putting together exhibits when she submitted a 200-page document to the NJ Supreme Court opposing his release. Ms. Waldorf worked as a legal analyst in the past, but quit working prior to the divorce by using the excuse of being on Social Security disability for the Lupus.



    According to NJ caselaw, Social Security disability letters are no longer sufficient evidence for one to not be able to work. There must be medical evidence such as diagnoses and reports to back up the inability to work. Other than Ms. Waldorf's own testimony, according to the transcripts, no medical professional ever testified as to her real inability to work.



Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202582011154

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.