Cordero v. Mora

2009 WL 290538 (2009)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Cordero v. Mora

New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
2009 WL 290538 (2009)

Facts

Wilfredo Cordero (plaintiff) played major-league baseball for 14 years, during which time his salary fluctuated from a high of $6 million per year to a low of $600,000 per year. His last year in major-league baseball was 2005. Cordero and his former wife Wendy Mora (defendant) had one child, for whom Cordero paid child support. The amount Cordero paid changed over time. He initially paid $1,300 weekly, but that obligation was modified downward and upward by court order over the years. In May 2007, Mora moved to enforce an order requiring Cordero to pay $500 weekly and seeking to compel Cordero to pay almost $12,000 in arrears. In response, Cordero claimed he could not pay the arrears or the $500 per week going forward. In support of his request to reduce his child-support obligation, Cordero argued that he no longer played professional baseball and had been able to secure only short-term work at a camp (for which he earned $4,700 between June 21 and August 4, 2007) and a job at a deli (for which he received $8.25 per hour). Cordero further showed he had no 2006 salary and monthly expenses of more than $20,000 and claimed that his only assets were a $100,000 brokerage account and a major-league pension (of an undisclosed amount) that he could not access until age 55. Cordero also cited his child with a subsequent former wife, for whom he had not paid support. The trial court ordered Cordero to pay the arrears and denied his request to reduce future payments, ruling that Cordero failed to submit sufficient financial information and had presented extremely limited evidence about his attempts to find employment or about possible assets that could generate income or be liquidated. The trial court also expressed concern about Cordero’s failure to explain what happened to the millions of dollars he earned playing baseball. Cordero appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership