Daniel Pelic is an Associate in HDRB&B’s Matrimonial & Family Department and has dedicated his entire practice to matrimonial and family law litigation and appeals. Daniel assists clients with various matters involving divorce, child custody, child support, equitable distribution, appeals, domestic violence restraining orders, grandparent visitation, Division of Child Protection and Permanency matters, adoptions, and prenuptial and postnuptial agreements.

Following law school, Daniel had the rare privilege of being selected to serve two consecutive judicial clerkships. Over the course of his clerkships, he drafted hundreds of judicial opinions setting forth his judges’ decisions. Daniel leverages his knowledge of judges’ decision-making processes in servicing his clients.

Daniel understands that clients looking for representation with matrimonial and family law matters are likely experiencing some of the most upsetting and stressful experiences of their lives. Daniel takes great pride in advising and guiding clients through these matters and works tirelessly to achieve the best possible outcome.

Daniel’s pro bono work has included representing plaintiffs in domestic violence restraining order cases and assisting indigent veterans in child custody and child support related matters.

Publications

  • “The Compendium of Family Law for Law Clerks”, 2017

Representative Matters

  • Ciulla v. Ott, 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1558, 2019 WL 2932658 (N.J. App. Div. July 9, 2019). In this matter, Mr. Pelic, representing a child support recipient, successfully opposed the child support payor’s appeal. The payor argued that a mediation clause in the parties’ divorce agreement required Mr. Pelic’s client to attend mediation with the payor before she could enforce the payor’s agreement to pay child support and other expenses. The Court disagreed with the payor and agreed with Mr. Pelic’s argument that his client could enforce the parties’ agreement in the first instance despite the mediation clause. Mr. Pelic also filed a motion and obtained an order from the Appellate Division requiring the payor to reimburse Mr. Pelic’s client for attorney’s fees and costs that she incurred opposing the payor’s appeal.
  • Mennen v. Mennen, 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 753, 2019 WL 1468745 (N.J. App. Div. April 2, 2019). In this matter, Mr. Pelic was the primary author of the winning brief that successfully opposed the appeal of an alimony payor who attempted to terminate or modify his alimony obligation due to Mr. Pelic’s client’s alleged cohabitation. The payor argued on appeal that he had successfully made a prima facie showing of cohabitation warranting discovery and a trial despite the fact that he produced no evidence of intertwined finances and shared living expenses. Mr. Pelic pointed out that the parties agreed to utilize the economic dependency standard for cohabitation cases utilized in the Supreme Court of New Jersey matter of Gayet v. Gayet. Mr. Pelic argued that the payor had to present evidence of intertwined finances and shared living expenses to make a prima facie showing of cohabitation under the Gayet standard and the facts and circumstances of the matter. The Court agreed with Mr. Pelic’s argument and affirmed the trial court’s finding that the payor failed to make a prima facie showing of cohabitation warranting discovery and a trial on the issue of whether Mr. Pelic’s client’s alimony should be terminated or modified. Mr. Pelic also filed a motion and obtained an order from the Appellate Division requiring the payor to reimburse Mr. Pelic’s client for attorney’s fees and costs that she incurred opposing the payor’s appeal.
  • Mennen v. Mennen, 238 N.J. 486 (2019). In this matter, Mr. Pelic was the primary author of the winning brief that successfully opposed the alimony payor’s petition for certification of his case to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The Court denied the petition after Mr. Pelic argued that the payor presented no certifiable question to the Court.
  • Mennen v. Mennen, 2020 N.J. LEXIS 57 (N.J. January 14, 2020). In this matter, Mr. Pelic filed a motion and obtained an order from the Supreme Court of New Jersey requiring the payor to reimburse Mr. Pelic’s client for attorney’s fees and costs that she incurred opposing the payor’s petition for certification. Such an order is a rare occurrence.

Prior Experience

  • Associate, Townsend, Tomaio & Newmark, L.L.C., 2017 – 2019
  • Hon. Michael E. Hubner, J.S.C., Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part
    • Clerk, 2016 – 2017
  • Hon. Daniel D’Alessandro, J.S.C., Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division
    • Clerk, 2015 – 2016
  • Student Attorney, Volunteer Lawyers for Justice, 2015
  • Law Clerk, Stern & Kilcullen, LLC, 2013 – 2015
  • Summer Associate, Law Offices of Brandon J. Broderick, 2013

Civic & Charitable Activities

  • Trained volunteer with the Battered Women’s Legal Advocacy Project (“BWLAP”) and Jersey Battered Women’s Services (“JBWS”)

Education

  • Rutgers University School of Law, Newark, NJ, J.D., 2015
  • Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, B.A., 2008

Clerkships

  • Hon. Michael E. Hubner, J.S.C., Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, 2016 – 2017
  • Hon. Daniel D’Alessandro, J.S.C., Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, 2015 – 2016

Admissions

  • New Jersey, 2017