One of the most common misconceptions about divorce is the belief that spouses must live apart for a specific period of time before they file for divorce.
In New Jersey, physical separation is not required before filing for divorce. While separation can be relevant in certain cases, it is not required in order to begin the divorce process.
Separation Is Only One Possible Ground for Divorce
The Third Circuit has formally aligned itself with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision making it easier for majority-group employees (i.e., men, heterosexuals, Caucasians, etc.) to pursue so-called “reverse discrimination” claims. In a decision authored by newly appointed Judge Emil Bove, the court held that plaintiffs who are members of majority groups are not required to establish “background circumstances” demonstrating their employer was inclined to discriminate against majority groups.
Applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Ames, the court concluded that the language of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), like its federal counterpart, protects “any” individual from discrimination. The Third Circuit reasoned that employees who are not in the “minority” to satisfy a higher evidentiary standard would be inconsistent with that statutory language and with principles underlying federal anti-discrimination law. Because the NJLAD framework has historically tracked federal Title VII jurisprudence, the court treated Ames as controlling guidance when evaluating the state-law claim.
It remains to be seen whether New Jersey’s appellate courts will adopt the same approach, as they have not yet addressed the issue following Ames.
On March 3, 2026, a federal judge in the District of New Jersey transferred an employment lawsuit to North Carolina, holding that the case should proceed in the state where the corporate decisions were made, rather than where the remote employee performed their work.
Background
In Papa v. IAT Insurance Group, Inc., a New Jersey resident worked remotely from her home as a senior instructional designer for a North Carolina-based insurance company. The remote employee filed suit against the company in the District Court of New Jersey, alleging that she was subject to discrimination and retaliation by her employer. The employer moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of North Carolina, arguing that although the employee worked remotely from New Jersey and was present in New Jersey during many of the alleged discriminatory actions, the key employment decisions underlying her claims were made at the company’s headquarters in North Carolina.
Business owners spend years building something tangible: crews, equipment fleets, supplier relationships, customer goodwill, and a reputation that can’t be bought overnight. Yet when an owner becomes incapacitated or dies, the most expensive flight is often not with a competitor, it’s inside the family.
Trust and estate litigators see the same pattern repeatedly: the owner’s plan technically exists, but it contains “red flags” that practically invite a courtroom brawl. When those red flags aren’t addressed during life, they’re often resolved in a courtroom where the process is lengthy, emotional, and expensive.
For owners whose business is hands-on, asset-heavy, seasonal, and often family-involved, the risk is amplified. Below are the most common litigation triggers I have seen in my practice, along with planning moves that can keep your family, your crews, and your company out of chaos.
One of the most common concerns people raise when considering divorce is whether the location of their marriage limits where they can file for divorce. This question often arises for couples who married out of state, married abroad, or relocated years after their wedding.
This is an understandable concern that I often hear in my practice. Going through a divorce is an already uncertain experience for clients, and misinformation about jurisdiction can create unnecessary stress. Fortunately, New Jersey law is clear on this issue: where you were married usually does not determine where you may file for divorce.
What matters instead is whether the New Jersey court has legal authority over the case.
Many people direct the disposition of their bank accounts, investments, retirement accounts and life insurance upon their death by designating beneficiaries of those assets. When an asset passes by beneficiary designation, otherwise called a pay-on-death provision, it becomes a non-probate asset and therefore passes outside of a person’s probate estate.
In New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, among other states, a divorce automatically revokes any provisions in a will which benefit a former spouse, unless the will expressly states otherwise. Similarly, New Jersey statute 3B:3-14 provides that a divorce revokes any revocable appointment directing the disposition of property – such as a beneficiary designation – to a former spouse unless the governing instrument, court order, or divorce agreement dividing marital assets expressly states otherwise.
This year, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether a decedent’s pay-on-death provision on his U.S. savings bonds survived his divorce and satisfied the terms of his divorce settlement agreement (“DSA”). The decedent, Michael Jones (“Michael”), bought Series EE U.S. savings bonds while married to Jeanine Jones (“Jeanine”) and named her as the pay-on-death beneficiary of the bonds. When Michael and Jeanine divorced in 2018, the DSA required Michael to pay Jeanine $200,000 over time and also stated that any marital asset not specifically listed in the DSA “belong[ed] to the party who ha[d] it currently in their possession.” The DSA did not explicitly mention the savings bonds.
On November 24, 2025, the U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) finalized a rule regarding when and how postmarks are applied. See 39 C.F.R. § 111 (2025). It is important for taxpayers and their advisors to be aware of the change because it has an impact on proving that a document was filed. While the rule does not change how mail is processed, it does change how postmarks should be understood, especially when deadlines matter.
What Changed?
While postmarks have long been relied upon as evidence that a document was mailed on a certain date, the new rule makes clear that this assumption is not always accurate. In most cases, postmarks are applied by automated machines at regional processing facilities, and not at the local post office where a piece of mail is dropped off. As a result, the date printed on a postmark may reflect the date the piece was first processed—not the date it was actually placed in the mail or collected by the USPS.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN’) has postponed the compliance date for its “Residential Real Estate Reporting Rule” to March 1, 2026. The rule is designed to increase transparency in the U.S. residential real estate market and to combat money laundering. Starting March 1, 2026, real estate transactions that qualify as a “reportable transfer” will need to comply with FinCEN’s reporting requirements.
What is a “Reportable Transfer”?
A ‘”reportable transfer” occurs when all of the following criteria are met:
Many people contemplating divorce assume that to separate from their spouse they will need to participate in a courtroom trial. The thought of a “divorce trial” is often reinforced by television, social media, and stories passed down from prior generations. In reality this is no longer how divorce works in New Jersey today.
Over the past several decades, particularly since the 1980s and through significant procedural and statutory reforms in the 2000s and 2010s, New Jersey’s family court system has shifted away from routine trials. Courts now place strong emphasis on settlement, structured negotiation, and practical resolution.
Understanding this reality can help to reduce a divorce client’s anxiety and help them approach the divorce process with clearer expectations.
As a result of the 2025 tax legislation passed in July of last year, there has been a significant increase in the estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer tax exemptions to $15 million effective January 1.
The increase means that in 2026, an individual may make gifts during life or at death totaling $15 million without incurring gift or estate tax, and a married couple will be able to transfer $30 million of assets free of transfer taxes.
The annual gift tax exclusion provided by Code section 2503 remains at $19,000 per donee (or $38,000 if spouses elect gift-splitting).
Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C. Firm News & Events