Alimony/Spousal Support Category Archives — Page 3 of 3 — New Jersey Divorce Lawyers Blog Published by Monmouth County NJ Family Lawyers

December 7, 2014

Decline in Business’s Revenue May Trigger Reduction in Alimony with the Right Evidence and Court Forms

Obtaining a reduction in your alimony obligation can be difficult. The law requires clear proof that you’ve suffered a sizable enough non-temporary reduction in your income to warrant the reduction or elimination of alimony. The courts refer to this as a “substantial change in circumstance.” New Jersey court rules also require you to file the right paperwork (an application, known as a “Notice of Motion”) in order for the judge even to consider your evidence. One wife’s failure to meet the various requirements led the Appellate Division to uphold a trial judge’s decision denying her motion for an alimony modification.

The case of Bonnie Clark and Anthony Pomponio involved a couple who not only shared a marriage but also ownership of a business, New Jersey Diamond Wheel. When their 19-year marriage fell apart in 2001, the wife filed for divorce. After a lengthy legal process, the trial court gave the wife ownership of the business but ordered her to pay the husband $35,000 in alimony per year. A few months later, the judge dropped the alimony amount to $20,000 per year.

October 6, 2014

Recent New Jersey Law Clarifies The Definition Of Cohabitation In Alimony Modification Cases

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

Alimony arrangements can become infuriating when the alimony recipient secretly cohabitates with a new partner. This often results in one of two untenable situations: The alimony recipient may be using their alimony disbursements to financially support their new paramour; or the alimony recipient may be receiving cash payments of financial support from the new paramour, while concealing significant changes in finances.

Cohabitation is an area where divorce and dissolution becomes exceptionally messy. The obligor (person making alimony payments) sometimes hires a private investigator to monitor the alimony recipient and try to prove cohabitation. If cohabitation is discovered, the obligor may follow up by trying to discern the financial changes that result from the new cohabitation arrangement. Cohabitation can be hard to prove, because a wily alimony recipient might keep their new financial arrangements “off the books” in order to continue to receive alimony checks.

The evidence often yields an incomplete picture of the situation, which is then used to persuade a judge that cohabitation is occurring and an alimony modification is warranted. But a second problem arises because judges traditionally wield vast discretion in defining cohabitation, thus making alimony modification outcomes hard to predict. Continue reading

October 5, 2014

New Jersey Family Collaborative Law Act Creates New Options, But It Isn’t For Everyone

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

The New Jersey Family Collaborative Law Act creates a new way to settle differences in divorce and dissolution cases. This method of cooperative problem solving has its advantages, but when it fails it can potentially add time and expense to the process of terminating marriages and civil unions. If you are facing a divorce or the dissolution of a civil union, you should consult with a New Jersey family law attorney to determine which path might lead to the best outcome for your case.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has long tried to encourage alternatives to courtroom divorce battles. The Supreme Court requires attorneys to inform their clients about alternative dispute resolution options. Now there is an additional alternative available in New Jersey, which promises a friendlier approach to resolving differences.

Family Collaborative Law encourages negotiation and problem solving between the parties in a divorce or civil union dissolution. The New Jersey version of this concept was codified in September 2014, and it is based on the 2009 Uniform Collaborative Law Act that was created by the Uniform Law Commission. Several other states have also enacted similar laws. Continue reading

October 3, 2014

New Jersey Supreme Court Makes Important Ruling Regarding Oral Palimony Agreements

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

A 2010 change to New Jersey law made oral agreements for palimony unenforceable. But it was unclear whether this change would affect agreements that were already in place. A landmark case was recently decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court, declaring that older oral palimony agreements are still valid. If you are struggling to enforce a palimony agreement, or if you want to create an agreement of support between yourself and a loved one, you should contact an experienced New Jersey family law attorney.

When two people agree to something, they don’t always “get it in writing.” New Jersey law recognizes that some oral contracts can be just as binding as written contracts, but there are a number of problems inherent in oral agreements. Therefore, it is imperative to get your agreements in writing and in a format that comports with the law.

New Jersey’s Statute of Frauds requires that certain important agreements must be made in writing in order to prevent fraud. For example, if you transfer ownership of real estate, make certain major agreements relating to creditors, or make agreements that depend upon a future marriage, the Statute of Frauds requires those agreements to be in writing. Continue reading

October 1, 2014

Alimony Reform Law Addresses Inconsistencies Among Alimony Modification Cases

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

In an alimony arrangement, the “obligor” is the person who is making alimony payments. Sometimes the obligor experiences an unexpected job loss or a reduction in income. This often leads to a request for an alimony modification judgment. An alimony modification can reduce or suspend the obligor’s alimony payment obligation. Previously, New Jersey law was vague as to when and how an alimony modification judgment should be implemented. In the absence of clear legislative guidelines, New Jersey judges often applied their own rules and criteria to cases, leading to unpredictable outcomes and a sense of general unfairness.

The inconsistent nature of our alimony modification system was causing a great deal of stress for people who had already lost their jobs. In a new law, the New Jersey legislature addressed this problem by requiring judges to base their decisions on the following 10 factors: Continue reading

October 1, 2014

New Jersey Alimony Reform Creates Much Needed Guidelines, But Still Allows Broad Judicial Discretion

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

Alimony reform has brought sweeping changes to the way New Jersey judges evaluate alimony arrangements. This legislation creates guidelines to encourage predictability and fairness in divorce and separation proceedings. Although courts must adhere to these general guidelines, judges still retain a great deal of discretion in deciding cases. Therefore, you should talk to a New Jersey divorce attorney who can advocate strongly on your behalf.

New Jersey alimony reform creates mandatory criteria that judges must use when evaluating the amount and duration of alimony payments. The reform law also eliminates “permanent alimony” and calculates the duration of alimony payments based upon the length of the marriage. Finally, the law clarifies three circumstances that permit alimony to be reduced, suspended, or terminated.

Prior to alimony reform, judges used their own criteria to evaluate alimony cases. This made it difficult to predict financial outcomes, so the legislature created 13 mandatory criteria designed to promote greater uniformity among judges. These criteria include a number of factors, including the parties’ financial needs, earning power, assets, and past standard of living, the age and health of both parties, the dependent party’s need for education and training, and one party’s past sacrifice for the career advancement of the other. Judges are given broad discretion when it comes to administering these criteria, and judges are also free to consider “any other factors” that are deemed relevant. Continue reading

August 27, 2014

Termination of Alimony Payments in New Jersey

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

In the state of New Jersey, it is rare that the entry of your final judgment of divorce represents the final interaction with your former spouse, especially if your settlement agreement or judgment of divorce includes a provision for alimony to be paid. Whether you are the payor/obligor or the payee/recipient of alimony, it is a common occurrence that post-judgment issues arise between the now divorced spouses will inevitably occur and, in many cases, it involves the issue of alimony. This post-judgment scenario frequently occurs when the obligor spouse believes that the dependent spouse receiving alimony may be cohabiting with a person in a relationship akin to a marriage and thus, believes the alimony obligation should terminate or, at a minimum, be reduced. Continue reading

August 4, 2014

How do I Oppose a Motion to Terminate Or Modify a Support Obligation in New Jersey?

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

In a case decided on July 30, 2014, Viso vs. Viso, the Appellate Division rejected an appeal to modify the court order which denied the supporting spouse’s obligation to terminate or modify his support obligations. In this instance, the parties’ were divorced in December 2007 and memorialized their agreement in a property settlement agreement which the court incorporated into their final judgment of divorce.

Approximately four and a half years later the Plaintiff, the supporting spouse, filed a motion to modify his support obligations asserting that his financial circumstances had changed, his income had decreased, and that the defendant, the supported spouse, had increased income. His motion was denied by the trial court.

In New Jersey, a court may modify support if there is a showing of changed circumstances. Those changed circumstances can include an increase or decrease in a supporting spouse’s income. It may also include an increase in the supported spouse’s income as well as subsequent employment by the dependent spouse. The party who seeks to modify the support amount has the burden of proof.