NJ Family Legal Blog : New Jersey Divorce and Family Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Domestic Violence, Prenuptial Agreements, Child Custody

For about a decade, Limited Duration Alimony (LDA) has been an available form of alimony in New Jersey.  The questions often asked regarding LDA is, when should it be awarded and, relatedly, for how much and how long? 

These questions were recently addressed in the unpublished Appellate Division opinion of Elliott v. Prisock-Elliot, decided on June 2, 2009.  Generally, where one spouse is economically dependent upon the other at the end of a marriage, an alimony award helps the dependent spouse achieve a lifestyle "reasonably comparable" to that enjoyed during the marriage.  Several factors are included in a Court's alimony determination under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, including, but not limited to the dependent's spouse's needs and ability to fulfill them, and the other spouse's ability to contribute.

LDA, though, is specifically intended to address a dependent spouse's economic need for support where the marriage reflected a true partnership, but the marriage itself was too short in duration for a permanent alimony award, and the dependent spouse needs neither education nor job training to return to the workforce that would potentially merit a rehabilitative alimony award.  LDA essentially aids the dependent spouse who has the education/job skills to have a career, but devoted efforts instead to the marriage and allowed the other spouse to increase their own earning capacity at the same time. 

The Appellate Division found that the trial judge in Elliott failed to adequately consider the alimony factors and the purpose of LDA in granting its award of 10 years of LDA at $30,000 per year on a marriage of less than 10 years at the time the complaint for divorce was filed and approximately 12 years when the dual judgment of divorce was entered.  Specifically, the Appellate Division noted the trial court's error as to the length of the marriage; its complete lack of findings as to each spouse's marital contributions other than that each had worked on their own to care for the children; and its insufficient assessment of the dependent spouse's need for alimony and the other spouse's ability to pay.  The trial court's decision on alimony was reversed as a result.

While LDA should not be awarded as a substitute for permanent alimony when a permanent award is appropriate, a proper LDA determination requires a careful look at each fact-specific case and how those facts mesh with the statutory alimony factors in New Jersey, as well as a consideration of LDA's overall purpose in aiding a dependent spouse in need.  Also, while the amount of an LDA may be modified, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(c) prohibits modification of the length of the LDA term except in the case of the broadly termed "unusual circumstances."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One issue often looming over the preparation of a Property Settlement Agreement is whether or not the parties agree to waive statutory rights to seek a modification of support.  Otherwise known as an "anti-Lepis" clause, such language seeks to essentially overcome the courts' "equitable power . . . to modify alimony and support orders at any time," under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 and the New Jersey Supreme Court's seminal decision in Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 145 (1980).  Drafting such an enforceable anti-Lepis clause is not as easy as it sounds, as found by the Appellate Division in Stefanacci v. Stefanacci.  

The facts of the case are relatively straightforward, as it was the language of the Property Settlement Agreement at issue that formed the basis of the dispute.  After a 20-year marriage, the parties filed for divorce.  The parties ultimately resolved the matter, memorialized in an oral settlement stated on the record.  Included in the oral stipulation was Joseph's agreement to pay Marcia limited duration alimony for 13.5 years or until Marcia's cohabitation with another person unrelated by blood or marriage for 120 days; Marcia's remarriage; Joseph's death; or Marcia's death.  Provision was also made for the commencement of payments and Marcia's ability to seek child support should alimony cease and the children are unemancipated.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Many times a Property Settlement Agreement or Judgment of Divorce will address the payment of alimony.  An alimony calculation, among other factors, is calculated upon the length of the marriage, the income of the parties, the assets each will receive by way of the divorce, the age and health of the parties, and the age of children, if any, etc.  The standard in New Jersey for a divorcing spouse is the ability to maintain the 'marital standard of living' or as close thereto as may be economically possible.

So, does permanent alimony really mean forever? The answer depends on the language in an Agreement or Judgment of Divorce.  There is case law in New Jersey stating that cohabitation may be a cause to terminate alimony.  However, cohabitation alone is insufficient unless the Agreement states otherwise.  There also needs to be some financial benefit or economic intermingling.

Recently, the Appellate Division issued an unpublished decision in the matter of Adessa v. Adessa, A-2854-07T2, decided May 29, 2009, wherein husband filed a motion seeking to terminate his alimony obligation based upon his former wife's cohabitation or alternatively, requesting a hearing and discovery to determine if there was an economic benefit being received by former wife as a result of her relationship.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Previously I blogged on the issue of mediation and my skepticism of the process under certain circumstances.  This week there was a spirited discussion regarding the issue of mediation on the New Jersey State Bar Association Family Law Section listserve.  As a result, I thought it would be wise to highlight some of the issues again.

To frame the issue, the bigger debate surrounded the practice where a couple goes directly to a divorce mediator or some other trained mediator, without attorneys.  Some of the things that raised concern were as follows:

1. Some mediators are concerned not whether the mediation is fair, but rather, simply that the parties reached a settlement
2. Number 1 would be less troubling, except that many mediators are not telling the party receiving an unfair deal that it is unfair
3. Rather, apparently, for many mediator's, the phrase, "I think you should discuss this issue with a lawyer" is code for the resolution of this issue or this case is unfair.  However, people go to mediators to avoid lawyers and/or there is an undercurrent among mediators that divorce lawyers really are not looking out for the parties' interests.  Moreover, some parties think that if a mediator is not putting a stop to the mediation when something is unfair, that it must be fair.

There was also a concern that the imbalance of power in the marriage that naturally is creeping into the mediation is being ignored.  A perfect example is in a case where alimony, perhaps permanent alimony is a no brainer, yet the wife is willing to waive it in mediation.  Is anyone asking why?  Did the husband vow to never pay alimony?  Was there a threat to "go after custody" if a spouse sought alimony?  Did one spouse say "I spoke to a lawyer who said you weren't entitled to alimony" as a means to deter the other spouse from seeking it?  Was the other spouse given access to money to consult their own attorney?  I once represented a woman in a post-judgment matter whose husband would not give her money for the attorneys she wanted to see, only for mediation and then an attorney he hand selected for her to draft the Agreement.  It was not shocking that the "mediated agreement" included a waiver of alimony and the child going to school where the husband lives, when the child was of school age, despite the fact that the wife was the primary caregiver. 

I have also seen many a  complex matter where one party is pushing for mediation and there hasn't even been the most basic exchange of information at that time, much less formal discovery. I have even seen cases where the party with the documents will not provide them in advance of mediation and will only bring them to mediation and take them with him at the end. The better practice, and the better mediators require, parties to have attorneys involved from the start of the mediation so that both parties are fully informed about the law and the process and so that any imbalance of power can be rectified with an attorney protecting the weaker party.

There is no doubt that mediation and other methods of alternate dispute resolution can be a good thing.  That said, I have often seen mediations result in a "settlement", but one where the disadvantaged spouse got a "deal" that was neither fair nor reasonable, if not unconscionable. The problem in these cases is that often, once there is an "agreement", the person that got the great deal refuses to concede anything. Thus, a method meant to avoid litigation can often create litigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an interesting unreported Appellate Division decision released on May 20, 2009, in the case of Williams v. Williams the appellate court affirmed a finding by the trial court that the former husband had not shown a change of circumstances and therefore was not entitled to eliminate his alimony obligation.  The case is also a primer of what not to do when seeking a reduction.

In this case, the husband was a long time employee at JP Morgan Chase making $185,000 per year.  His alimony obligation was $1,000 per month.  When he lost his job in August 2006, he immediately stopped paying alimony despite receiving one year of severance pay.

The husband asserted that he had tried but failed to find comparable work.  The opinion was not clear but given the final outcome, one can surmise that overwhelming proof of an unsuccessful job search was not supplied to the Court.  The husband further alleged that he had attempted unsuccessfully to establish a consultant business focusing on information technology. He claimed, however, that the only employment he could obtain was a position in a florist shop. It was not disputed that the florist shop was operated by his girlfriend.  Though the issue was ultimately decided for other reasons, these facts could also lead to a conclusion the he had not made an initial showing of a change of circumstances.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While there are several factors that a court will consider when making a determination of whether to award alimony and the amount, one of the arguably most important is the income earned and the lifestyle of the parties enjoyed during the marriage.

In the recent unpublished Appellate Division matter of Plocharczyk v. Plocharczyk, decided May 13, 2009, A-3749-07T1, the Court addressed the issue of alleged hidden income for a party who owned what is considered a cash business, a restaurant.

The parties were married for 19 years and at the time of the divorce had one 10 year old child.  The parties proceeded to a trial to determine the issues of child support and alimony.  The major dispute was the husband's income.  Each party retained their own forensic accountant to serve as an expert to calculate both parties' incomes.  During the course of the marriage, the husband was the primary financial provider by operating two restaurant businesses. 

In the midst of litigation, the husband made the unilateral decision to sell one of the two restaurants and then proceeded to argue that his income was reduced, thus attempting to reduce his alimony and child support obligation.  Husband claimed that he had to sell one of the restaurants because he owed $70,000 in back taxes.  The trial judge found that although the back taxes were owed, there were other available means to pay the taxes, therefore there was no need to sell the restaurant.  The trial court relied on the wife's expert's opinion that the sale of the restaurant had not been an arms length transaction.

The trial judge declined to reduce the husband's annual income because of the sale of the restaurant.  Based upon the calculations, the judge found there to be a $600 per week shortfall in the wife's budget.  In reaching that number, the trial court found that not only was the wife short of funds to meet the marital lifestyle but also lacked an ability to save money, as the couple had been able to do during the marriage.

The husband followed the trial court's opinion with an appeal.  The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's finding.  In doing so they stated that New Jersey courts recognize that "it is the self-employed obligor who is in a better position to present an unrealistic picture of his or her actual income than a W-2 wage earner."  Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17, 23 (App. Div. 2006). 

EDITOR'S NOTE:  Cases where one party owns a business generally present more challenges than cases where someone is a W-2 wage earner.  Naturally, the valuation of the business or businesses is a complex process requiring an expert and in depth discovery.  As income is often the most critical element in determining value, it becomes that much more important to determine the accurate income.  As noted in the above case and the Larbig case cited, someone who is self employed can manipulate their income such that what is reported on their tax return is not actually all that they are receiving.  The first place to look is to see what perquisites the business owner has which are being paid by the business.  These often include vehicles, cell phones, travel and entertainment.  From an IRS perspective, many of these may be appropriate and allowable business expenses - from a divorce accounting perspective, you may have to add back these personal expenses paid by the business to determine true income.  Moreover, while perhaps one car is legitimately deducted, the business owner's spouse's car is also "owned" and paid for by the business, as is their cell phone.  Careful scrutiny has to be given to the corporate American Express or other credit cards to see whether the charges are really business expenses or personal expenses.  In a case we have now, the typically personal type expenses on the business tax return seemed reasonable but the Cost of Goods Sold on the tax return for a business that didn't sell anything seemed abnormally high.  In reviewing the bank records, the personal expenses were buried in the cost of goods sold. 

Then there is cash or "unreported income" which is a topic unto itself but something which must be determined to determine the true income of a party and value of the business.

The point is that you have to look behind the numbers on a tax return when someone is self employed or employed in a family business.  Our firm is well versed in these kinds of cases.        ERIC S. SOLOTOFF

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

We have previously posted many blog entries regarding modifying alimony and child support based upon job loss and/or reductions in income in light of the historic, current economic down turn.  To see some of my prior posts, click here, here, here, here, and here.

In our practice we have seen many clients coming in to address these issues and have heard anecdotally from judges that the increase in these kind of motions has hit the courts.

That said, there is still little consensus on how these cases are being handled.  There is no consensus amount the courts regarding how long you have to wait to come to Court.  There is no consensus amount the court's regarding how much of your assets you have to go through, or whether you have to incur debt before you can file.

There seems to be a focus on the lifestyle of the support payor, i.e. has he or she reduced their lifestyle.  While that is an appropriate consideration, it may be too simplistic.  Looking at the house someone lives on or the car that they drive likely does not tell the whole story.  Can the person reasonably sell their home in this market without facing a deficit?  How long would it take to sell the house anyway?  Maybe the car is leased or if financed, there is negative equity and they cant rid of it to reduce their expenses. 

The bigger question is whether despite a clear loss or reduction of income, whether the payor has to strip their lifestyle to bare bones, or whether the undisputed reduction of income should be enough. 

Court's also have to beware the opportunist who is using the bad economy in general to try to reduce or limit their support obligation when there is no real credible evidence that they have or will be affected. Scrutiny in this regard is particularly difficult when the payor is a business owner and has the ability to control their income in various ways.  The skepticism and scrutiny in these cases is heightened.  I have two cases now represented service providers - one of whom has lost many long term clients because they have simply gone out of business - and the other, who has received less than half of the orders and deposits then have historically been received by this time of year (and it is a seasonal business). 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

In reaction to the Supreme Court's decision in Mani v. Mani (which held that non-economic fault was not relevant to alimony except in "egregious circumstances") and the Appellate Division's decision in Calbi v. Calbi (which did not preclude alimony to a woman who beat and kicked her 14 year old son to death during an alcohol related incident), on April 17, 2009, Governor Corzine signed a bill that did the following:

• It amended the alimony statute to deny alimony to a person convicted of murder, manslaughter, criminal homicide, death by auto, aggravated assault of a similar office in a other jurisdiction if the crime results in the death of a child and is committed after the divorce.
• It eliminated inheritance rights for a surviving parent that abused, abandoned, committed a sexual offense against or negligently endangered the child
• It eliminated under the worker's compensation statutes recovery by a parent who committed those same acts against their child. 

We previously blogged about the tragic Calbi case.  To see that post, click here.

The new law takes effect in July 2009.

Though the Appellate panel in Calbi invited the Legislature to amend the law, it will be interesting to see if there will be further legal challenge to these laws, particularly as to the alimony  and worker's compensation aspects, because of the specific purpose of those laws. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

New Jersey has upheld the long standing principle that permanent alimony awards are subject to review, modification and possibly termination based upon changed circumstances.  (Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980).  However, it is not enough to paint a bleak picture of a payor's financial circumstances in order to succeed in a downward modification or termination of alimony.  The applicant must also show the Court that the financial difficulties being encountered are not temporary and/or subject to contingent circumstances.  Innes v. Innes, 117 N.J. 496 (1990).

In the recent unreported Appellate Division decision of Norych v. Norych (A-2633-07T1 decided April 16, 2009), while the payor applicant provided the court with very grim descriptions of his personal financial situation and the financial affairs of his law firm, the applicant miserably failed to substantiate his professed circumstances.

In the Norych matter, the parties were divorced in 1992 and at the time of the divorce, the ex-wife received a permanent alimony award of $1,000 per month partly based on ex-husband's law firm income of $70,000 per year and ex-wife's income as a teacher of $25,000 per year.  Ten years later, the alimony increased to $1,100 per month.  In October 2007, ex-husband filed a Motion seeking to terminate his alimony obligation based upon  what he characterized as two devastating and shocking events. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The end of the Court year in  New Jersey in June 30th.  With that will come pressure, perhaps unnatural pressure, but pressure nontheless to resolve cases. 

While the fact that there are judicial shortages in many counties may provide relief, I suspect that it will do little to quell this rite of Spring.

As the legal system is very statistically driven, a court's performance is often measured in how many cases they clear, and more particularly, whether there is backlog (i.e. is the case too old for the case type that it is).  My undertanding is that a divorce case in in back log when it is over 1 year old. 

One tool that Court's use to clear more cases this time of year is to hold "blitz weeks."  During a blitz week, the oldest cases in a county are scheduled for trial and all of the family part judges clear their calendars to allegedly try cases during these weeks.  Whether or not cases actually get tried during blitz week is another story.  However, the threat of trial, along with the court's active assistance in trying to settle cases often clears many cases from the docket.

Also, in the cases that are naturally scheduled for trial during this time of year, adjournments become more difficult.  Regularly, multiple trials are scheduled for a judge for the same day.  The reason for this is that most cases settle or get adjourned so if only one case were scheduled, a judge could have open court time.  Often you will learn where you are on the list in terms of which is the oldest case and can get a sense as to whether the trial date is a real one.  In fact, usually the first and second trial date are not "real" dates, but rather dates when a court will try to get you to settle. 

That said, at this time of year, if you want to try to adjourn these dates, it becomes more difficult, with the hope that you will settle.  There is an old joke that goes, what is the easiest way to get an adjournment, tell the court you are ready for trial.  In reality, it works in the reverse.  That is, when you seek an adjourment of a trial date, courts often deny this expecting that it will help force a settlement. 

In my practice, if I appear for a trial date, I am prepared for trial.  I learned early on that the best way to be prepared to settle a case it to be prepared to try a case.  That way you are negotiating from a position of strength and very often, the other side really isn't prepared for trial  - making favorable settlement terms more likely.

In any event, if your case is getting close to a year old, expect pressure from the Court to get it done before June 30th.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Though we have blogged about this issue in the past, as it is particularly topical given the article in today's NJ Biz that New Jersey area (including the New York Metropolitan area) job losses are outpacing the national addresses. 

As noted on prior job posts. the standard for modifying support is that there has to be a substantial and continuing change of circumstances.  Moreover, in order to get relief, you must document your job search efforts to show the court that you have made a good faith effort to find a new job.

When a client loses their job, the following things should be done:

1. Retain all documentation from the employer showing that the job loss was involuntary.  If there is a severance agreement and any other documentation, that should be maintained as well as the final paycheck showing the severance received (if paid in a lump sum).
2. Keep a detailed log of all efforts made to find new employment with as much information as possible (who you contacted, when you contacted them, what they said, etc.)  If the communications were in writing, keep copies of all emails, resume's, cover letters, rejection letters, if you applied for a job on lie (i.e. Monster.com), confirmation that you applied for work.
3. If the problem is industry wide, any newspaper, trade or other articles or documentation showing that the industry has contracted or is having problems.

The question arises regarding what you do when offered a job that is not consistent with your prior earnings.  If you have been out or work for a short time, this creates a tough decision about whether to take this job or wait.  If you do take this job, my suggestion early after losing a job, my suggestion would be to continue your job search if at all possible.

If you have been out or work for some time and you have made a good faith job search, while possible, I find it hard to believe that a court would penalize someone for taking work - especially in this economy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The New Jersey Appellate Division has held that an application seeking to set aside a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) under Rule 4:50-1 of the New Jersey Rules of Court should be granted "sparingly."  It was this very type of application that formed the basis of the Appellate Division's recent opinion in Heald v. Heald, found here.

The parties were married for 28 years and had 4 children before the Final Judgment of Divorce was entered in November 2006.  They had separated in 2005 and, for a significant period of time, negotiated the terms ultimately encompassed in a PSA, executed in April 2006.  Notably, the parties agreed to use the Husband's 2004 income to determine his support obligations.  The PSA also contained language that the parties were knowingly waiving their right to discovery regarding each other's income and assets.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When most parties enter into what is commonly referred to as a Property Settlement or Marital Settlement Agreement, they do so with the intention that this is a comprehensive agreement, resolving all the issues and a document that will govern their dealings with an ex-spouse going forward.

Oftentimes people are shocked to learn that some provisions in those agreements can be subject to modifications by a court.  Such is the case of the recent unpublished appellate division matter of Anello v. Anello, Decided March 23, 2009, A-2405-07T3. 

These parties were married in 1982 and divorced in 2002 by way of a dual final judgment of divorce incorporating the terms of their Property Settlement Agreement. ("PSA")  Two children were born of this marriage.  In the PSA entered into by the parties, the husband was entitled to alimony, to which there was a specific and detailed waiver of this right.  Husband waived the right to receive permanent alimony and gave wife a greater share of equitable distribution in exchange for a total and permanent waiver of a child support obligation for both children.  Husband did agree to contribute to college expenses and non-recurring extraordinary events for the children.  Husband's waiver of permanent alimony was expressly conditioned upon his non-payment of child support.

Some four years after the agreement was entered into, husband filed a motion seeking custody of the son, child support, alimony and counsel fees.  The parties entered into a Consent Order resolving this motion, which reserved the issues of child support and alimony pending discovery.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton, Pennsylvania office, and the editor of the firm's Pennsylvania Family Law blog, wrote an excellent post on that blog entitled "Stock Option Developments."  To read the post, click here.

Stock options have become a large part of executive compensation over the last few decades.  Moreover, they have become common additional/incentive compensation even for non executives who work for large public companies.  We have had to deal with the issue of options both in terms of the division of them in equitable distribution and as a component of income for determining alimony and child support.

Mark's post raises interesting food for thought regarding the issue of the re-casting and/or re-pricing of options, post-complaint. 

Stay tuned for updates as the law develops regarding this topic.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Given the current economy, a major issue being discussed by family law attorneys and judges is how to handle the issue of support modification where due to the current economy, someones income is eliminated or greatly decreased.  The standard for modification of support is that there has to be a showing of a substantial and continuing change of circumstances.  One of the major issues being discussed is how long does one have to be out of work before making an application to the Court. 

The second issue is even if the change is temporary - whatever that now means - should there still not be some temporary relief because if the existing Order or Agreement is not fair.  A general proposition of law is that Agreements can only be enforced to the extent that they are fair.

Earlier this week, the Appellate Division decided the case of Baker v. Baker which leads me to believe that help may be on the way. To view the case, click here.

In Baker, the parties were divorced in 1998.  At the time, the husband worked was a Managing Director at Pershing Trading Company and earning nearly $800,000 per year, the great
bulk of which came in the form of an annual bonus.  The parties agreed that he would pay alimony in the amount of $10,000 per month.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

This was a good and bad week for Martin Brodeur, the goalie for the New Jersey Devils.  On a good note, he passed Patrick Roy as the all time winningest goalie in NHL history.  On a bad note, he lost his appeal of an alimony award in the Appellate Division.  To see the opinion, click here. This is the second appeal in this case.  To see the opinion in the first appeal, click here.

This was a 7 1/2 year marriage from the date of marriage until the date of separation.  It was clear that it is was the parties' intention that the wife would be a full time, stay at home caretaker of the children.

In the first appeal of this case, the Appellate Division affirmed the award of alimony to Melanie Brodeur in the amount of $500,000 per year but reversed the award of permanent alimony.  In this case, the Appellate Division affirmed the award of limited duration alimony until the youngest child graduated from high school.

In the first appeal, the Appellate Division held that:

limited duration alimony is particularly suitable for a situation such as here when the marriage was of short to intermediate duration and the woman is young and has young children. The judge is able to fashion an award that provides financial support to the former wife while she cares for the children.

The Court then addressed the factors that should  be considered in the decision of the length of the term, as follows:

The term should be informed not only by the age of the children, but also by the parties' decision that plaintiff should be the primary and full-time caretaker of the children.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the recent unpublished Appellate Division matter of McDermott v. McDermott, A-0631-07T1, Decided February 20, 2009, the Appellate Division remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings on the amount of loans taken during the marriage from plaintiff's family and the distribution of responsibility for repayment of those loans.

The parties were married for nearly 30 years.  Plaintiff/husband was an attorney with a solo practice and defendant worked at his office for many years, helping to raise their five children and eventually finding employment outside the home with a local school district.  During the marriage, the parties primarily relied upon the income earned from plaintiff's law practice.  This income fluctuated throughout the years, in part due to the economy and in part due to plaintiffs bouts of depression.

During the 15 day trial in this matter, testimony was offered that during the course of the marriage, plaintiff made some unilateral decisions with regards to the parties' finances, including taking loans from his family and purchasing property without notifying defendant, who only found out during trial.  Defendant claimed that she only knew of very few of the loans given by plaintiff's family, however evidence submitted at trial indicated otherwise.  Plaintiff's sister offered credible testimony that the total amount of loans given was $283, 398.50 of which only $6,300 was repaid. 

After the trial, the trial judge issued a written decision, which in part, obligated defendant to repay plaintiff's sister the amount of $57,165.31 as her share of loans made to the marital partnership; valued plaintiff's law practice at $100,000 of which defendant was entitled to half; compelled plaintiff to pay $2,000 per month in limited duration alimony for a period of 6 years; and ordered plaintiff to pay $49,000 of the $80,202.70 counsel fees incurred by defendant in the divorce litigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On February 3, 2009, my colleague, Katherine R. Sookhoo, an associate in or Philadelphia office,  wrote a very interesting article on cohabitation in our Pennsylvania Family Blog entitled For Love or Money.  I found the blog interesting for two reasons.  First, the rule of law between Pennsylvania and New Jersey are significantly different.  Second, although different, the difficulty litigants have in either jurisdiction in proving that their ex-spouses are cohabiting is the same. 

Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Divorce Code, divorce litigants are not entitled to alimony if they cohabit after they have been divorced.   However, in Pennsylvania, in cases resolved by way of Property Settlement Agreement, the Pennsylvania Divorce Code provision applies only if the agreement specifically states that cohabitation terminates alimony.

Unlike Pennsylvania, New Jersey statutory law does not prohibit receipt of alimony payments based upon cohabitation.  In New Jersey, while cohabitation may be considered a change in financial circumstances that permits a review and/or a modification of alimony, the fact that an ex-spouse cohabits does not necessarily mean that alimony will be terminated.  Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (1999). 

While Pennsylvania and New Jersey have differing laws regarding cohabitation, both jurisdictions are plagued with the uncertainty of how the Court's define "cohabitation".  In Pennsylvania, there has to be a showing of a financial, social and sexual link, by sharing the same residences.  Miller v. Miller, 508 A.2d 550 (1986).  In New Jersey, the New Jersey Supreme Court  noted that “to constitute cohabitation, the relationship must be shown to be serious and lasting” and that  “a mere romantic, casual or social relationship is not sufficient to justify enforcement of settlement agreement provision terminating alimony upon dependent spouse's cohabitation; such a provision must be predicated on a relationship of cohabitation that can be shown to have stability, permanency, and mutual interdependence” Id.  

Therefore, does cohabitation exist if your ex-spouse and her paramour switch back and forth in sleeping in their respective residences?  If they stay together only on weekends?  If they have resided together for a month?  How about a year?  What if their finances are totally separate? In either Pennsylvania or New Jersey, the answers to those questions are not entirely clear and Courts determine the issues on a case-by-case basis.

Because there is no exact definition of "cohabitation", proving that cohabitation exists may be tricky and requires a thorough analysis of the circumstances before raising the issue in Court.  If a litigant is going to allege cohabitation, before doing so, they should make sure that factually and legally, they have enough to get beyond the "grey" area because (1) if you are going to proceed in Court, you want to prevail; and (2) you don't want to go to Court, lose, and give your ex-spouse the ability to further avoid termination of alimony now that they know your on to the cohabitation.   

 EDITOR'S NOTE:  Apple is absolutely correct regarding the grey areas. That said, there have been a number of unreported Appellate Division decisions over the last year or so that have been more permissive in what amounts to cohabitation.  Specifically, many of the cases suggest that staying together every single night may not be required, and that the location is not entirely important (ie. some nights at her house and some nights at his house.) 

However, once some semblance of cohabitation is shown, unless the divorce Agreement specifically calls for the termination of alimony, and most don't, the next issue to address is the financial interdependence between the former spouse and cohabitant.  Put another way, cohabitation is not enough to terminate alimony in the typical case.  You have to look at the financial impact of the cohabitation.  Eric S. Solotoff

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 We all hear that in bad economies, divorce filings traditionally decrease.   There are many reasons for this, many of which are a subject for another day. Yet a prevalent concern that many of my potential clients express is the fear of the next step financially. Starting over is difficult and indeed overwhelming in the most amicable divorce where the parties both have substantial income. When the money is tight, is adds an additional layer of stress.  Some people mistakenly believe that they simply cannot afford to divorce their spouse.

One of my first questions to a new client is to find out if they have an accountant and financial planner of their own that they trust. If they do not, having them find one is near the top of my “to do” list for that client.   This is because, in most cases, there will be an equitable distribution of assets that have to be invested, whether it be a new home, a new IRA, or a new investment account. My client has to plan for his or her future early on and this may mean very different planning that occurred during the marriage. Even when there is a distribution of debt, there must be consideration of how to best pay that debT. Is a home equity loan appropriate? Should the debt be paid from assets that may not have as much capital gains given the current economic state? What are the tax consequences? These are all issues that need to be discussed with the client and financial specialists.

Another concern for many clients is purchasing a new home. For some, it may be the first time they are purchasing a home. Clients are concerned about obtaining a mortgage in these difficult economic times. It seems as if forces are colliding against some clients. For instance, we have all heard that banks are only lending to people with excellent credit scores. Yet during a divorce, many people experience financial stress and their credit rating suffers, often because of the other spouse. So what to do? First, many people do not realize that there are banks that are lending and there are mortgage brokers who cater to people who find themselves in a divorce. Also, rates are down and there are incentives for first time homebuyers. Clients already have most of their financial information ready as a result of the divorce. There are people and banks out there. It is just a bit tougher to find them in these times.

At the end of the day, my client has to make the decision that is best for his or her situation.  But I have to make sure that the client has to tools to make the right decision. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On February 13, 2009, the Appellate Division issued an interesting unreported decision in the case of Chopoorian v. Chopoorian dealing with a topic that we have blogged about frequently as of late - modification of support obligations. To review the full text of the opinion, click here.

The parties were divorced in 2005.  During the marriage, the husband operated a highly  successful advertising business which provided him with an annual income of over $900,000 in 2003. The parties also owned several valuable pieces of real estate.  The divorce agreement required the husband to pay $187,500 per year in permanent alimony and $50,000 per year in child support.  Of note, the Agreement stated:

Husband’s earned income as defined herein may increase to $650,000 gross per year (before taxes) before Wife is entitled to file a Motion to modify/increase alimony
based on an increase in Husband’s earned income. Husband’s earned income must decline to $400,000 gross per year (before taxes) or below before he is entitled to file a Motion to modify/decrease alimony based on a decrease in earned income.

The husband was also supposed to pay the wife $1.3 million over time for her share of the business interests.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Usually, the "you snooze, you lose" defense is not often a successful legal tactic.  However, in the recent unreported Appellate Division decision in Adler v. Adler the former wife's application seeking unpaid child support, alimony and other obligations brought some 30 years later was denied essentially because she waited to long to collect.  To read the full text of the decision, click here. 

Pursuant to the Judgment of Divorce entered in 1973, the ex husband was required to pay $235 per week as undifferentiated child support and alimony until the oldest child was emancipated, at
which time the weekly support was to be reduced by $50 per week.  That same $50 reduction was to occur when each of the two younger children became emancipated. The JOD also obligated
defendant to pay: the mortgage, taxes, insurance and utilities on the marital home; all reasonable and necessary medical expenses for the children; health insurance premiums for ex-wife and the children; $3,500 to the ex-wife on or before August 15, 1973; $6,231.85 for various unpaid bills arising during the marriage; college tuition for the parties' three children; and orthodontic treatment for the parties' two sons.  Other than an enforcement Order from November 1973, there were no other Orders in the case.  In addition, in 1975, the Probation Department closed their account, though arrears existed at that time, due to direct payments being made.

Between 1975 and 1978, the ex-husband stopped making payments.  There was an enforcement motion filed in Maine in April 1978 and another Order entered later that year in Delaware County, New York that held the husband in contempt. Another enforcement motion was filed in late 1979 but their appears to be no further enforcement efforts taken thereafter.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Litigants who get caught lying about their income in their filed submissions to the Court subject themselves not only to denial of their request for relief from the Family Part Judge but they also open the door for problems with the IRS, the State of New Jersey Division of Taxation, the Prosecutor’s office and the Social Security Administration. 

In the recent unpublished Appellate Division decision of Lucci v. Lucci, Defendant ex-husband filed an application in 2008 to permanently terminate his alimony obligation on the basis that his income significantly decreased. Notably, between the time of the divorce in 2000 and the time of the application, Ex-Husband had been successful in reducing his alimony obligation on two separate occasions. First, by consent in 2004, he was able to reduce alimony from $300 to $150 per week. Then, by consent in 2005, he was able to suspend his alimony because he was “unemployed”.  In 2008, he was seeking to permanently terminate his alimony obligation.

Ex-husband stated in sworn Certifications filed with the Court in the 2005 and the 2008 proceedings that he was laid-off of work, went through periods of unemployment and was finally able to obtain employment with much lower compensation. The Ex-Husband also certified that during his periods of unemployment, he received unemployment benefits. 

In opposition to the application, Ex-Wife presented the Court with a sworn Certification from a Company that was never disclosed by Ex-Husband.  The Company stated that it had employed Ex-Husband including the period during which Ex-Husband received unemployment benefits, that Ex-Husband misrepresented his employment status to the Court, and that he had earned income in an amount comparable to that which he earned when the Order of support subject to the Motion was filed. The Company further advised the Court that Ex-Husband provided two conflicting Social Security numbers to the Company. Finally, the Company advised that the income reported on Ex-Husband’s tax returns did not include his income from the Company.

Ex-Husband’s attorney did not know about Ex-Husband’s employment with the Company.

Not only did the Court deny Ex-Husband’s request to terminate alimony but the Court also wrote a letter to the IRS, State Division of Taxation, the Sussex County Prosecutor and the Social Security Administration.   Moreover, the Court granted Ex-Wife’s request to reinstate alimony at $300 per week effective in 2004 and granted her counsel fees. Despite the fact that Ex-husband was reported to the authorities for what the Court perceived to be intentionally wrongful conduct, the Ex-Husband had the gall to appeal the decision to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial Court’s decision with the exception of the effective date of the reinstatement of alimony. The Appellate Division noted that while it was clear from Ex-Husband’s filed submissions to the Court in 2005 that he had provided misleading information, it was unclear whether he provided misleading information in 2004. If Ex-Husband did not provide misleading information in 2004, the Appellate Division noted that the effective date of the reinstatement should be in 2005 when Ex-Husband was required to pay $150 per week in alimony. The Appellate Division directed the trial court to determine the issue after further Court proceedings.

The moral of the story is if you get caught lying in submissions to the Court for which you certified under oath that your statements were true, be prepared to not only pay the consequences to the other litigant but you may also have to pay a hefty price to authorities. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an interesting unreported decision in the matter of Valente v. Valente, on January 27, 2009, the Appellate Division reversed the award of permanent alimony to the wife after an 11 year 9 month marriage.  To view the full text of the case, click here.

The relevant facts are as follows:  During this 11 3/4 year marriage, the court deemed that the marriage was "traditional"  in that the husband was the sole income earner while the wife was the homemaker and caretaker of the three children. The husband  was a successful businessman who owned fifty percent of an insurance agency. He earned an average of $323,000 over three years prior to the filing of the complaint not including perquisites addressed brief in the opinion.  The wife had  a high school degree and worked in the clothing industry after high school until just before the birth of her first child, earning about $24,000 per year.

In reversing the aware of permanent alimony, the Appellate Division held:

"In our view, alimony of limited duration is appropriate in this case. The marriage of eleven years and nine months was of intermediate length. Considering plaintiff's age and intelligence as well as the fact that her children are both of school age, we see no reason why she cannot obtain employment within a reasonable time, and an award of limited duration alimony will give her incentive to do so. Moreover, at the end of a limited alimony term, plaintiff may seek permanent alimony or an extension of limited alimony if her earnings are insufficient to maintain her lifestyle without alimony."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Early on in a case, the lawyer and client will have to determine what experts will be necesary to resolve a case either for settlement or trial.  In fact, at the first Case Management Conference, the uniform Case Management Order requires that you identify the types of experts you need and how they are going to be paid for. 

What is an expert and why do we need them?  Per the Rules of Evidence, "If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."  Simply put, an expert is a tool to help determine a fact.  Experts provide information that the parties cannot generally provide themselves.

What kind of experts are used in these cases?  The following are some examples:

• Forensic accountants to value busineses, determine actual income, trace income and assets (including tracing premarital assets), to provide lifestyle analysis, to provide cash flow reports based upon proposed alimony and child support scenarios and a variety of other financial related issues,
• Business valuation experts (sometimes they are not accountants)
• Experts to value stock options or other exployee benefits - often but not always accountants
• custody evaluators - usually forensic psychologists, but occasionally forsensic psychiatrists and social workers, who will give an opinion of custody and parenting time
• educational experts - to determine which school or school district is better, what program is better, public vs. private school issues, educations issues regarding children with special needs
• employability experts  - to determine what someone can and/or should be earning.
• pension appraisers - usually actuaries, to determine the value of a pension, parse out premarital shares of 401ks, and draft Qualified Domestic Relations Orders
• Real estate appraisers
• personal property appraisers
• jewelry appraisers
• art, coin, antique appraisers
• medical doctors - to assess disabilities or sometimes personal injuries
• handwriting experts
• computer forensics
• Interpreting services (for documents in foreign languages)
• experts to value intellectual property

There are probably many other types of experts.  This list does not even include other professionals that may help the parties, but probably not testify, like financial planners, stock brokers, insurance agents, parent coordinators, reunification therapists or for that matter any treating therapists.

Over the years, we have worked with most or all of these types of experts as the need has arisen.  Should an issue requiring an expert come up in one of our client's cases, we are well equipped to handle it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton (Chester County), Pennsylvania office and the editor of our Pennsylvania Family Law Blog, wrote an interesting post entitled "Property Settlement Agreements: Be Careful What You Sign Up For", on that blog. 

To read the full post, click here.

The post discusses how the Bankruptcy laws impact on divorce matters.  The bottom line is that while a debtor may be able to avoid all kinds of debts in a bankruptcy proceeding,  if your obligation is to a spouse or your kids, the rules are different and those obligations are going to survive your bankruptcy. The bottom line is that you should make an agreement that is realistic and reasonable, that you can actually pay and not one that you hope you will be able to pay.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

My clients often ask “will I get the same thing that my neighbor received in his divorce” or “why can’t my ex share in transportation-- my cousin has to share with her ex” or “my friend earns so much more than me and his support is much lower than mine”. I always tell my clients that as a rule, don’t compare your situation with the situation of someone else. 

While the same laws concerning family law actions are applied to each case, each case is different and therefore, the outcomes are different. It is true that many cases have similar factual patterns but most of the time they are not exactly the same. Using one of the examples above, while someone may be earning more but paying less in support than another litigant, it could be that the ex-spouse of the litigant had other available resources generating income like an inheritance or the ex-spouse could have received more of the family assets as a trade-off for less support. While it is very tempting to compare your situation with that of another person, keep in mind that more likely than not, you are not getting the full story from that person. Also, sometimes misery loves company and it could be that the only part of the story you are getting is what the other person painfully remembers the most.

Also important to note is that in New Jersey, the statutory factors for an award of support or for a custody determination are numerous. The Courts apply each factor to the given situation and then completes a balancing of all of the factors prior to rendering a determination. It is in this application of the facts that results in different determinations among cases. Moreover, litigants should also recognize that Judges are vested with a certain level of discretion in weighing the factors which is yet another reason why the outcome of cases differ. 

Notably, if one was to review a significant amount of family law decisions published by the Court concerning the same exact issue (child support, alimony, custody, etc.), it is very unlikely that a person would find a decision with the same exact fact pattern as their given situation. 

In short, save yourself some frustration and make it a rule not to compare your family situation with that of someone else during a litigation and focus on your facts with your attorney.   After all, as I tell my clients, it is your facts that we will be presenting to the Court and not the facts of your neighbor, cousin or friend.

EDITOR'S NOTE:  i once had a client who used to say that no one could believe how much temporary support he was paying and that it was the most anyone ever heard of.  My answer was, "Do they make a million dollars a year like you? No.  Do they make a half a million a year?  No  Do they make $250,000 per year?  No.  The moral is that he was talking to people whose finances had no similarity to his and reacting to their shock.   That goes exactly to Apple's point - while friends and relatives are good for support and a shoulder to lean/cry on, they are not usually a good source of legal advice or information.           ERIC S. SOLOTOFF

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I was reading an unreported Appellate Division case released today and gasped when I read the following sentence, " ...Moreover, the permanent alimony figure was negotiated and presumably contemplated defendant's retirement since he was fifty-three years old when he appeared before Judge Piscal on September 19, 2000."  To read the full case, click here.

While the facts in this case may have justified the denial of the former husband's motion to modify alimony, that statement struck a chord.  In this case, the parties were married for 32 years, a long term marriage by any standards.  However, by current standards, we often start talking about long term marriages being 15 years or more and if alimony is appropriate, the discussion is about permanent alimony begins.  Moreover, although there is a well known Appellate Division case authored by Judge (now Supreme Court Justice) Long suggesting that it is better practice to negotiate the issue of retirement, the reality in practice is that it is rare that the party receiving alimony will concede the issue of retirement in the agreement.  Often it is just too speculative.  At best, you may get a recognition that there can be an application for a review upon retirement.

Given that you typically cannot get any concession about retirement and there is no doubt that this was a permanent alimony case, is the above quoted statement a fair or a realistic view?  I don't think so. 

Assume a long term marriage where all assets, including retirement assets are equally divided.  The law is clear that you cannot look to assets divided in equitable distribution for support.  Post-divorce assets can be considered.  If in the 8 or 10 or 12 years after the divorce, after paying alimony and perhaps child support, the payor does not accumulate substantial assets, then what.  What if he bought a new house with his equitable distribution and did contribute the max to his 401k during the post divorce years.  In this economy , the value of the home and the 401k could be down substantially.

More importantly, one would think by this sentence that someone who agrees to permanent alimony can never retire.  This, however, is wrong as a matter of law.  Thus, for a court to determine that a retirement by a person who was age 53 when he agreed to permanent alimony was contemplated in the agreement, is both practically unrealistic and legally incorrect in my opinion. 

That said, as noted above, the denial of the motion to modify under the specific facts in that case made perfect sense.

However, I think it is essential, if possible, to at least get recognition in a Marital Settlement Agreement, that, if nothing else, the issue of retirement was discussed but unresolved to best preserve the issue for another day.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On December 12, 2008, the Appellate Division released a reported decision in the case of Rogers v. Gordon which addressed the enforceability of a pre-statute prenuptial agreement.  To review the full text of the case, click here.  The case is interesting because it addresses again the standards to be applied to an agreement signed before the enactment of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act in NJ.

In this case, the parties entered into a prenuptial agreement as a young couple.  The wife was a graduate of the Wharton School of Business and came from a wealthy family.  The husband was a high school graduate working for the Postal Service.

The parties married in 1981, had four children and were married for more than 24 years before the wife sought a divorce.  During the marriage, the wife went to work for her father's business, which she eventually purchased from him during the marriage.  In 1990, the husband left the Postal Service to work as a machine operator for the business.  In 2002, he was promoted to plant supervisor.  Not surprisingly, when the divorce commenced, he was demoted to a machine operator again.  The trial court made a finding that at the end of the divorce, there was not a "snowball's chance" that he was going to keep the job given the wife's intense animosity for him evidence during the trial.  In fact, the judge found her to be totally incredible regarding this topic.

At the time of the divorce, the husband's income was $63,000 - the wife's was more the $600,000.

The Uniform Premarital Agreement Act was enacted in NJ in 1998 and applies to all agreements entered into after its enactment.  As such, because the agreement in this case was entered into prior to the Act, the Court had to apply the case law from prior to the act.

In citing the Marschall case, the court noted that there was a three prong test for enforceability, as follows:  1) there was full financial disclosure; 2) that the party sought to be bound knew and understood the terms and conditions and 3) that the agreement, be fair and not unconscionable, ie. that it not leave a spouse a public charge or close to it, or with a lifestyle far below what was enjoyed before or during the marriage.

The court also cited the D'Onofrio case which said that the alimony provisions in the agreement need not cover all contingencies because the Lepis or change of circumstances standard would apply.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

There has been much talk in the news, on family law list serves and in other media that the economy is slowing divorce rates.  In following some of the anecdotal evidence, this may be true in some states and places and not as true in others who report that divorce filings have not changed.  Other than the usual slow down right before the holidays (which is usually followed by the New Years resolution rush of divorce filings), I have not seen much of a slow down.

That said, these times should by necessity to cause people to think out of the box in terms of the usual paradigms that we had been following over the last several years.

Yes the real estate market is down.  That may be good for a party wanting to stay in a house.  Or, maybe parties will consider working together to defer distribution until some future time when the real estate market rebounds.  That may be a fair resolution.  To read a related post on the value of real estate in divorce matters, click here.

Maybe someones income is down or has lost their job because of the unprecedented economic times.  If this is a real loss/reduction of income as opposed to divorce planning, maybe things such as a review of alimony and child support in a year or two or three, may be fair.  Maybe a formula approach may be fair where the support is based upon some base amount of income perhaps higher than someone is earning but lower than the historical income, with a formula to share in income above the base, up to some cap.  While typically a yearly exchange of income information is disfavored, maybe that needs to be considered where income now is not what it was.  To see a related post on this topic, click here.

While it is true that the economy may create challenges, it is not necessarily an absolute impediment from people freeing themselves from what they see as an unhappy if not impossible situation.  Rather, it may take creative thinking, if not a cooperative approach to get to a fair result.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Appellate Division issued an interesting unreported (non-precedential) opinion on November 20, 2008 in the case of Freda v. Freda wherein the Court found that it was error for the trial court to not equalize the parties' Social Security benefits.

In this case, both parties were in their 70s and had been married for more than 50 years.  Their means were limited and this was not an alimony case, as they are typically before the Courts.  The wife, however, requested that their Social Security benefits be equalized so that post divorce they both had the same amount of money (the wife's Social Security benefit was $797 and the husband's was $1,400).

Typically, after 10 years of marriage, at a legally appropriate age to collect, a spouse is able to collect based upon their earning record or their spouse's, whichever is higher.  It is my understanding generally that when you collect on a spouse's record, a recipient gets half of what the spouse's entitled would be (this does not reduce the spouse's entitled, however.)

The Appellate Division stated  "We find the trial court's decision unreasonable under the
circumstances of this case where, after fifty years of marriage, the parties should share equally in their joint income as well as their assets."  As a result, the husband was ordered to pay the wife $300 per month as alimony

To view the full case, click here.

The wife's request in this case was one that is seldom seen in these cases and I have heard arguments that such a claim could be preempted by Federal law.  That said, if the amount of/right to receive Social Security is based upon earnings during a marriage, then like a pension, or for that matter any other asset acquired during the marriage, why should it not be divided too?  Perhaps that the answer is that this is not an asset, but rather a right, but that said, the arguments are analogous.  This is definitely food for thought in cases involving long term marriages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Pursuant to the statute, the general rule is that the tern of limited duration alimony cannot be extended without unusual circumstances.  A recent Appellate Division decision shed some light on what those circumstances could be.

Jane and Samuel had been married for less than seven years when they got divorced.  They had two children, ages 6 and 4 at the time of the divorce.  Both parties were attorneys although Jane stopped practicing law after the birth of their first child, within the first year of the marriage.  The parties negotiated and entered into an agreement designating Jane with residential custody of the minor children subject to Samuel's visitation and limited duration alimony in the amount of $500 per week for a period of four (4) years.  In addition, Samuel paid $500 per week in child support and child care related expenses to be paid 80% by Samuel, 20% by Jane.

At the time the parties negotiated their agreement, it was assumed that Jane would be able to obtain per diem employment in the law field.  Also, at that time, the oldest child was having difficulties with school and may have had ADD.  Since the time of the divorce, he has been diagnosed with ADD, Asperger's, Obsessive Compulsive disorder and Bi-Polar disorder.  As a result of these diagnosis, Jane argued that she was unable to obtain significant employment such that was contemplated at the time of the divorce.  Jane filed a motion seeking a continuation of her limited duration alimony, an increase in the amount of alimony, the production of financial information or in the alternative an increase in child support, and to establish a fund for their son's medical care.

The trial court denied Jane's application in its entirety.  She appealed and the Appellate Division reversed and remanded. the matter back to the trial court.  The Appellate Court held that an award of limited duration alimony may be modified based either upon changed circumstances or upon the non-occurrence of circumstances that the court found would occur at the time of the award.  A court may modify the amount of such an award but shall not modify the length of the terms except in unusual circumstances.  N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(c).

In this case, the Court found that Jane had established a change of circumstance for an increase in the amount of the limited duration alimony as well as an increase in the term based upon unusual circumstances, i.e. the health of the parties' eldest child.

The court was careful to explain in it's unpublished opinion that a modification to the time for payment of limited duration alimony as well as the amount would only be based upon an ability to prove changed circumstances or upon the non-occurrence of circumstances that the court found would occur at the time of the award.  Thus, the burden is upon the party making the application (i.e. the recipient spouse) that circumstances have changed such that a modification is necessary and just.  Here, the child's condition was far worse than anyone anticipated at the time of the divorce and Jane simply could not work as contemplated when the matter was settled. 

To read the entire case, click here.

EDITOR'S NOTE:  This case in interesting because there is little law on extending limited duration alimony.  What  is also interesting is that the Appellate Division applied a similar analysis that is used when someone seeks to either extend rehabilitative alimony or convert it to permanent alimony.  Rehabilitative alimony is meant to provide a person with the opportunity to improve their earning ability in order to become self-sufficient, without the need for alimony.                                       Eric S. Solotoff

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One need only pick up any newspaper, turn on any radio or television or even have water cooler conversation, even with those who never used to speak about the economy, to know of the serious economic crisis that this country and the world appear to be facing.  Even today, we read that the stock markets took yet another tumble based upon the news of increased jobless rates.

These realities will no doubt start hitting the family court system if they have not already begun to hit. Specifically, there will be motions by people paying alimony and child support to reduce their support because they have lost their job or have suffered a significant decrease in income.

In the seminal NJ Supreme Court case of Lepis v. Lepis, the historical standard for a modification of support is the showing of a substantial and continuing change of circumstances.  We also know that temporary changes do not form the basis for a modification. 

In fact, in order to get relief, a litigant usually had to show that they have made a significant, diligent job search and despite their best efforts, they could not obtain comparable employment.  How long this had to be depended on the circumstances, but it was probably more than 90 days, or even more than 6 months. 

The question during these times is have we entered a brave new world.  Will someone who worked on Wall Street earning $500,000 per year who has lost their job be expected to get comparable employment?  Should they?  What about the financial professional whose income is based in large part on either commissions or a large yearly bonus that they always used to carry them for the entire year who wont be getting a bonus this year or their commissions are 50% less than last year? 

In the past, when someones income was sporadic, the case law and Child Support Guidelines require that you take an average of 3 or maybe 5 years.  Is that fair now when doom and gloom about the economy is being predicted?  Put another way, is the 3 or 5 year average indicative of what the payor can really earn in this economy? Will the earn at historical levels during the foreseeable future? 

If we use an average now, or impute the last income earned, is that fair?  Is only the payor being forced to sacrifice in that case (assuming for the moment that they even have the ability to pay the prior support which may be unlikely)? If they are forced to pay support based upon passed income, will they ever get the money back when then show in a year or two or three that their income has not and may never be the same> The answer is that this is doubtful. Is this fair?

While representing the recipient, what choice will attorneys have to argue that the laws of imputation and averaging, as the case may be, must be followed by the Courts?  I do not think that we can argue a deviation from the law, to the detriment of our clients.

On the other hand, attorneys for the payor's have to be bold in their arguments that the existing law is distinguishable based upon the current circumstances.  I also think that Judge's must be courageous in their decisions so that the reflect the economic realities.

If the current economic circumstances are ignored, then I foresee a lot more enforcement proceedings, if not a lot more arrest warrants issue for failure to pay support.  In the end, if things continue as they are economically, attorneys and judges should try to work together, creatively, to strive for fairness for all of the parties based upon the economic realities of today.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (2)

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton (Chester County), Pennsylvania office and the editor of our Pennsylvania Family Law Blog, wrote an excellent post entitled "Do I Need A Business Appraiser? And Just What is a Forensic Accountant?" on that blog.

To read the complete post, click here.

EDITORS NOTE:  Forensic accountants are also used in matrimonial cases to reconstruct income, prepare lifestyle analyses (how the people spent their money), to trace income to make sure it is all accounted for, to trace premarital assets to establish exemption or partial exemption, to value stock options and other compensation and for other similar tasks.  In complex cases, forensic accountants, the divorce attorneys and of course, the client, work together as a team.  The key is to select the right expert and there are many excellent ones that we work with.  - Eric Solotoff

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mark Ashton, a partner in our Exton (Chester County), Pennsylvania office and the editor of our Pennsylvania Family Law Blog, wrote an interesting post entitled "The Owner Know Thy Business" on that blog.

To read the complete post, click here.
 

EDITORS NOTE:  Mark's post leads to a discussion of several interesting issues that are frequently encountered in matrimonial cases.  It is not unusual in cases where one or both parties are self employed that there is either unreported income and/or personal expenses being paid through he business.  In those cases, the tax returns are obviously unreliable for support purposes and you have to get the business books and records, credit card records and other documents to determine the business owner's actual income/cash flow.  I say cash flow because that person is not paying taxes on the expenses being paid through he business and the expenses are not added to that person's income.  In some cases, though there are some personal expenses that are paid through the business, that is neither unusual nor problematic from an income tax perspective.  A perfect example is the deduction of automobile expenses.  While this is acceptable, within limits, per the IRS, those expenses have to be added back to income per the Child Support Guidelines.  In fact, all personal expenses are supposed to be added back.  I have been involved in other cases where the husband was declaring just enough income to pay the mortgage, taxes and utilities on the parties' $2 million dollar house and there was no other declared income apparent to pay their other expenses which amounted to a few hundred thousand per year.  In that case, we had to use a forensic accountant to reconstruct the income through the parties' budget because, there were, surprise, sparse records. 

An interesting question, and unanswered question,  is how these non-taxed expenses should be treated for support purposes.  If some declares $100,000 in taxable income and has another $100,000 in non-taxable perks, what is the income number for support purposes.  $200,000 doesn't seem right because only half is taxed.  A normal, taxpaying citizen may have to earn $240,000 or more to have the same net after tax spending power.

A bigger issue to address which deserves its own separate blog entry is what to do when the case has these issues because of a NJ case called Sheridan v. Sheridan.  The rule as per Sheridan is that when a judge hears evidence of unreported income, they are duty bound to refer the matter to the IRS.  As Mark suggests, filing amended tax returns makes the most sense when confronted with this issue - as long as it doesn't happen too late - as was the case in the example in Mark's post.                        -Eric Solotoff

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In order to determine alimony and child support, the court must know what both parties earn.  In fact, the child support and alimony statute requires the court to look at the parents "earning ability" (in the child support statute) and "earning capacities" (in the alimony statute).  Don't ask me why the terminology is different but the concept is the same.  That is, if someone is not earning up to their capacity, the Court needs to know what they can/should be earning.

This often comes up when one parent, by agreement or otherwise, was a stay at home parent or worked part-time in order to care for the children.  The other instance where this comes up is one someone is a malingerer or otherwise unmotivated to work.  In fact, in a trial court opinion, when discussing imputation of income in one of these situations, there is an amusing reference to a dictionary definition of a parasite.

Notwithstanding, if someone is not working or is only working part-time, the court can and usually should impute income to that party.  Of course, if child care will be needed to replace the care that that parent gave, the court must also assess and offset what appropriate child care would be. 

The New Jersey Department of Labor publishes statistics on wages for numerous occupations, providing statewide statistics and statistics broken down by groups of counties.  In addition, the charts provide the mean, median 25th percentile and 75 percentile of income for the particular job.  To go the the Department of Labor website regarding this information, click here. 

Courts have the ability to take judicial notice of these statistics.  Some judges will - some wont.  In addition, these are merely cold statistics and may are may not provide definitive income regarding what someone can earn. 

Another method of providing evidence of what someone can earn is to employ an employability expert to assess the underemployed party.  Note however, there are some judges who do not allow employability experts, at all.  Of course, in a case where that same judge said that a wife's part time income should be doubled to get to a full time wage for support purposes, the Appellate Division reversed that finding because it lacked evidence in the record to support it.

I have heard other judges say that they do not put much weight to the reports/testimony of any of these experts, though they will permit them.  Just recently, an adversary during a trial objected to the scientific basis of employability experts, seemingly in general (though the expert was permitted to testify and the report was received in evidence).

While I suppose there can be a debate about the science, I for one am a proponent of employability experts, where appropriate.  A good expert will meet with the party, get a detailed history, perhaps do some testing, if appropriate, then do research.  Part of this research typically includes resources looking at job availability in the industry.  They also look at wage statistics such as those set forth above and other sources.  More and more, the experts will do a labor market survey in where they contact employers in the target field to determine whether the candidate would be considered for the job and what the range of pay is.  The good thing about the labor market survey is that it can buttress the statistics.  The bad thing, at least at trial, is that it is a ripe area for damaging cross examination.

That said, employability experts are an effective tool to help the court determine what an unemployed or underemployed person can earn.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the September 2008 ABA Journal, there was an article entitled 'Til Death Do Us Pay? As retired boomers head to the golf course, courts look at limits on alimony by Wendy N. Davis.  Discussed in that article is alimony after long marriages when the parties are nearing retirement age. This article got me thinking of a scenario we see in New Jersey frequently enough to make it worthy of discussion. 

Picture a 30+ year marriage where one party was the major breadwinner and the other did not work outside of the home (or if he or she did, there was a substantial disparity in incomes).  The knee jerk reaction is to say that this is a permanent alimony case, without question.

Now picture that there are substantial assets, including substantial retirement assets, that are going to be equally divided.  Does that change the assessment?  Maybe.

Now picture that each party is 62 years old.  Does that change the assessment? Maybe it should.
 

Presumably, the parties had discussed and considered retirement.  Even if they did not discuss it, retirement at 62 or 65 or 67 or some other reasonably anticipated age is not a far fetched concept.

In this case, one would expect that the alimony award entered could possibly equalize the parties' net incomes.  Even if it did not, the parties would likely be reasonably close in net income.  They will also have the same amount of assets.

Will the paying spouse be able to acquire substantially more assets in the few years before retirement? This is unlikely.  As the aforementioned article mentioned, will he be forced into "indentured servitude" to pay alimony so that the other spouse can be retired?  If so, is that fair?

The problem when negotiating settlements in these cases when representing the wage earner is that the other side will usually cling with a death grip on the notion of permanent alimony.  On top of that, in many cases, they will not even agree to language which gives the wage earner a right of review upon retirement - essentially leaving them to their devices to make a motion showing a change of circumstances (as opposed to skipping to step 2 which would be the financial analysis regarding whether the payor can still pay alimony based upon income and assets acquired post-divorce). 

This would seem contrary to the admonition that Judge (now Justice) Long included in a seminal case regarding retirement as it relates to alimony.  Specifically, she urged that it would be prudent to negotiate the retirement issue in a marital settlement agreement.  Despite that admonition, this is often easier said that done.

When it is not in the settlement agreement and the parties divorce at age 62, I can envision a defense to the retirement motion made just a few years later that "we agreed to permanent just a few years ago and retirement as foreseeable."  In short, the notion of permanent alimony will have been used as a shield and a sword. 

In any event, might it make more sense to agree to alimony for a term of years, with either a review at a certain age, unless the wage earner continues to earn as he/she has in the past and then it would continue until retirement.  While I know that few would agree to an automatic termination at retirement, shouldn't discovery and a financial review be automatic at this point.  While people always talk about wanting to avoid or narrow litigation - this would be a way to do it.  That said, it would be unusual to see someone giving up the advantage of the permanent alimony "right" without getting something back in return.  Under these facts, is that fair?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Previously, I blogged about the trial in the McGreevey divorce.  In that entry, I wondered whether it was the desire for retribution that was driving the case and whether the legal and expert fees exceeded the matters at issue.  To see my prior post, click here.

The decision of the Court was released yesterday and unfortunately I was right.  As for the one party playing the victim throughout and until the end, that was evidenced by Ms. Matos McGreevey's statement released even before the decision was released. 

As to the decision, it was decidedly in favor of Mr. McGreevey on the major issues raised by his wife.  Whether the issues raised were ever real and bona fide issues, that is another story.  In any event, the trial judge was clearly frustrated with the parties and it showed in her decision.  To read the decision click here.

Some of the highlights of the decision and Judgment of Divorce are as follows:

-There is no obligation to pay alimony.  In fact, the Judge found that to the extent that there was a need for alimony, it was caused by the legal fee debt associated with the case.

-Mr. McGreevey's income for support purposes was $175,000 - approximately $25,000 more than his employability expert opined and significantly more than he claimed he could earn as a seminary student. Child support was based upon that income and his wife's former income (she was laid off just prior to the end of the trial.) The Child Support Guidelines were used and then enhanced slightly due in large part to the fact that Mr. McGreevey was being supported by his partner.  He did not get a credit for the support for his other child because he was not currently paying it.

-The wife's claim for celebrity goodwill did not fly nor did her claim that marital lifestyle should be fixed based upon the lifestyle provided by the State of New Jersey to the Governor and First Lady.

-Each side had to pay their own legal fees. 

-The wife's fees total fees were more than $525,000   after receiving a courtesy discount of approximately $125,000.  Only $50,500 had been paid to date.  Mr. McGreevey's fees totaled $498,000 and he had paid only approximately $170,000. 

Given the costs and the results, could it have possibly been all worth it?  Based upon the Court's decision, it seems unlikely.  That is, unless there was a desire to drag the other through the mud and exact vengeance in a public arena.  If that was the victory sought and received by either or both of the parties, then the system failed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With the slew of recent celebrity or notorious divorces in the news lately (i.e. Christie Brinkley, Jim McGreevey, Bill Murray, A-Rod, to name a few), one would think that adultery and other marital fault is really dealt with in the courts and that people are punished for these actions by a Court. 

Maybe they are in other states, but it is not particularly relevant in New Jersey.  In fact, in 2005, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in the Mani v. Mani case, held that marital fault is irrelevant to alimony except in two narrow instances: cases in which the fault negatively affects the economic status of the parties and cases in which the fault so violates societal norms that continuing the economic bonds between the parties would confound notions of simple justice (examples given were attempting to murder the supporting spouse and deliberately infecting a spouse with a loathsome disease.). . 

This is not to say that the conduct is ignored altogether.  If a spouse spent marital funds on a paramour, the fault  is not considered but the other spouse by may be due a credit.  Similarly, if the conduct impacts on the fitness of a parent and/or the best interests of the children, they can be raised in custody and parenting time proceedings. 

While NJ still has fault grounds for divorce (i.e. adultery, extreme cruelty, desertion, voluntary drug addiction, habitual drunkenness, institutionalism for mental illness, imprisonment and deviant sexual conduct), they are not often plead anymore now that the no-fault "irreconcilable differences" cause of action for divorce was enacted.  That said, even when they are plead, all they get you is a divorce. 

Unless there is a limited issue where this is relevant, leave the seedy mudslinging to the celebrities. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I have eagerly awaited the news accounts each day of the ongoing saga of the former first family of the State of New Jersey. 

While by all accounts, there is some exceptional lawyering going on, one cannot help to think that this is a case that should have been settled or that one or more of the parties is using the trial to settle personal vendettas. 

Thankfully for the parties' child, they settled custody and parenting issues.  However, as the judge admonished at points in the case, their daughter is going to be able to read all about her parents' divorce by just typing hers and their names into Google.  And for what?

 While their marital lifestyle was perhaps unusual from the common folk, in both financial and other ways, at the end of the day, this was a short marriage. The testimony from both as reported suggests that there was no savings and few assets.  The disputes as to alimony seem absurd because even if there was a viable claim, how much could it have been for.  The legal and experts fees had to have exceeded the claim. 

Again, I don't know all of the facts and only know what I read.  However, I always tell my clients that you don't want to spend $10 in legal fees to get $5 back.  I wonder at the end of the day whether the battling McGreeveys will have done just that.  If so, that is good for no one - even the lawyers.  Moreover, I hope that the trial was not a vehicle for either to get the last of their 15 minutes of fame while at the same time, preventing parties with real issues from getting their day in court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

In an interesting unpublished Appellate Division decision dated May 23, 2008 in the matter of Pechinka v. Pechinka, A-6089-06T3, the court affirmed a trial court decision that denied an ex-husband's motion to terminate his limited duration alimony. 

At the time of the divorce in 2002, the wife was earning $46,000.  The husband earned $116,000 per year.  They stipulated that there marital lifestyle was $7,000 to $7,500 per month for a family of four  "... in an average month on living expenses." 

In 2006, the wife earned almost $91,000 and with her alimony, she had $6,100 per month in net after tax funds.  This amounts to about 81% to 87% of the joint family net income/lifestyle before the divorce. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There is a not too uncommon phenomenon that is frequently seen in divorce cases.  Specifically, as soon as the notion of a divorce action become a reality, many supporting spouse's incomes suddenly, and usually without valid explanation, drop substantially.  It may come as no surprise that someone may want to manipulate their income when an alimony or child support obligation is about to be set.  This affliction is sometimes known as "R.A.I.D.S." or Rapidly Acquired Income Deficiency Syndrome (sometimes also known as "SIDS"  Sudden Income Deficiency Syndrome.) 

That is not to say that there are not valid, legitimate and explainable deviations in someones income.  Some people are in commission sales and one year is legitimately better than another.  Perhaps someones income is tied to real estate.  That person may have a legitimate reason why 2007 and 2008 are down years.  Mortgage bankers are probably having trouble now as are realtors.  I recently had a case where if you looked at my client's tax returns and W-2s, one would think that support should have been based upon a seven figure income as opposed to a mid-six figure income.  In this case, there were some discrete one time payments from exercises of stock options and change of control of companies that he worked for.  These are not the situations I am talking about.  In fact, when there is non-recurring income, it may be legitimate to back it out for purposes of computing support or else the support would not be fair to the payor.  When income legitimately fluctuates from year to year, the Child Support Guidelines and decisional law suggest taking an average (3 or 5 years is common). 

The cases that I am talking about are those where there is no explanation for the sudden drop in income.  Very often, this occurs when the supporting spouse is self employed.  There are many ways income is hidden.  Sometimes, it is just not collected - as possibly evidenced by a large rise in accounts receivable.  Sometimes, there may be several capital expenditures or large equipment purchases, which reduce the profits and thus the income.  Other times, perquisites or personal expenses paid by the business increase dramatically.  Check the business credit cards - they are often illuminating in this regard.  Cash is also a possibility as are other manipulations with payments received.

In these cases, discovery is critical to smoke out the true income and real reason for the alleged reduction in income.  The use of a forensic accountant is often essential to get to the correct income number.  

RAIDS is certainly an illness that can be diagnosed and with the proper team of lawyers and experts, cured so that the supported spouse is treated fairly. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One of my pet peeves is litigants and lawyers that use custody and parenting time issues as a bargaining chip to get better a better financial settlement.  I have several matters ongoing now where that is occurring.

In a recent case, both in negotiations between the parties directly, and in negotiations with opposing counsel, we were told that the proposed resolution of a hotly contested parenting time issue for far less than had been demanded was fine but only as part of a global settlement including the finances.  Put another way, they were only going to resolve visitation if my client made financial concessions.  The bad faith of the tactic was evident.

In fact,  in New Jersey, there is really little interplay between the parenting time and the finances other than some child support adjustments made for the number of overnight visits.  This does not even really come into play in high income cases that exceed the Child Support Guidelines.  That said, since parenting time and custody issues are based upon the best interests of the children, most would agree that you should not negotiate these issues based upon money.  However, it comes up all to frequently, often to the detriment of the children and at a great financial and emotional cost to the parties. 

The system in New Jersey is set up to try to smoke out and resolve these bogus parenting and custody issues early in the case.  At the outset of a case, the parties are required to attend a Parent Education program given by each county.  After that, the parties are required to go to mandatory custody and parenting time mediation, usually with Court staff, unless there is a domestic violence restraining order in effect.  Only then, do you get into custody and parenting evaluations with experts, etc.  Also, this is all completed at the outset of the process, long before discovery is over, and often before it is even started in earnest.

A familiar scenario of the bad faith custody dispute that I have seen a fair amount as of late is as follows:  one parent is the traditional stay at home parent - the other is the Type A executive type that leaves the home at 6 a.m. and doesn't return home until 7 p.m.  Sometimes, that person travels substantially for business as well.  The stay at home parent has been responsible for all medical and dental visits, haircuts, play dates, teacher conferences, etc. The divorce starts and the  parent that works out of the home demands either custody or a 50-50 parenting arrangement. 

In these cases, absent mental health issues or other extraneous circumstances, the demand is one that is typically made either because there are control issues or as a bargaining chip.  That is not to say that there are not times where this parent should not get custody, because there are and I have gotten custody for these types of parents. 

That said, when these issues are made for bargaining, if the matter does not settle in mediation, the next step is custody evaluations by a forensic psychologist. If the parties cannot agree on a joint expert or the Court does not appoint one expert, there can be two experts.  The children are now made part of the process and have to meet with the expert several times.  Their teachers may be contacted.  Their doctors and therapists may be contacted.  The parties' therapists may be contacted.  Other collateral sources may be contacted (neighbors, coaches, family members, etc.)  The price to pay on the family, aside from the legal and expert fees, is high - especially when the issue is for bargaining only.

Don't get me wrong.  I understand that there are good faith custody and parenting disputes that require this process.  While the toll is still the same, that may be unavoidable.  However, if the issue is not a "real" one, I would hope that people would not use it improperly as a bargaining chip.  The collateral damage may be great.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Previously I blogged about the fact that cases have a life of their own and will only settle when both parties are ready.  As I was trying to settle a case today that is scheduled to start trial in Morris County next week, I was reminded of a related issue.

In this case, we have had a hard time getting the other side to negotiate.  They have taken a position that we don't think is reasonable nor supported by the facts or the law.  That said, we have made proposals to try to resolve the case.  In fact, at each time we have been required to negotiate (at the Early Settlement Panel, mandatory economic mediation (several sessions) and at an Intensive Settlement Conference), we have made proposals.  In some ways, it was against my normal practice to not bid against myself, but the client wanted to at least try to stir some movement. 

At each point, rather than provide a counter proposal, the other side has tried to wow us with, to put it nicely, "fuzzy math" in order to justify why they are right and we are wrong.  They have never, however, moved off of their proposal on support in any significant way. 

I finally had to tell the opposing counsel to just give me a number without the explanation or argument because I wasn't going to buy their theory, ever, and the theory didn't make a difference if the number was acceptable.

In fact, this is not unusual when trying to settle matters.  That is, sometimes the theories and explanations will bog things down.  The bottom line is that if  the parties agree on the number or a certain resolution of a non-financial issue, in many instances, it matters not at all how or why you got to that number.  In fact, the explanation may just start the argument again. 

Sometimes, it is more important to just give a number than explain how you got there.  If the number is fair and within the realm of reason, and the parties can live with it, it is sometimes better to be settled then win the debate which may only prove more costly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In late 2007, in Calbi v. Calbi, 396 N.J. Super. 592 (App. Div. 2007),  the Appellate Division once again re-affirmed the notion that marital fault is all but irrelevant when assessing a party's right to receive alimony. 

In what was as tragic a case as any parent could imagine, Mr. Calbi sought to terminate or reduce his alimony after one of the party's two children died at the hands of the mother.  Specifically, while intoxicated, during an altercation, Mrs. Calbi kicked her son three times in the head and once in the neck.  He died as a result of the injuries he sustained.  Ultimately, Mrs. Calbi plead guilty to second degree aggravated assault for which she was to be imprisoned for approximately 3 years.  As a result of the grief and trauma associated with the loss of his son as well as the added responsibilities for caring for the parties' other son, Mr. Calbi fell behind on his alimony.  In light of all of the circumstances, he sought the reduction if not elimination of alimony. 

The trial judge ultimately that any application to terminate alimony should await Mrs. Calbi's release from prison.  However, the current support was suspended, but the prior arrears were not vacated and Mr. Calbi was ordered to pay them. 

The Appellate Division reversed holding that suspension of Mr. Calbi's alimony payments and vacation of the alimony arrears that accrued after death of parties' child was required.  Moreover, upon Mrs. Calbi's release from prison, Mr. Calbi was entitled to a hearing  to determine whether the child's death affected his ability to pay alimony. 

That said, the Court went back and reviewed the cases regarding fault, including the 2005 case of Mani wherein Justice Long held that marital fault was irrelevant to alimony except in two narrow instances: cases in which fault has affected the economic life of the parties, and “cases in which the fault so violates societal norms that continuing the economic bonds between the parties would confound notions of simple justice.”   Justice Long spoke of   “egregious fault,” which she defined as acts by their very nature, are different in kind, such as a spouse attempting to murder the other spouse; a spouse who as deliberately infected the other with a loathsome disease.  Justice Long went on to say,  "Underlying these examples is the concept that some conduct, by its very nature is so outrageous that it can be said to violate the social contract, such that society would not abide continuing the economic bonds between the parties. In the extremely narrow class of cases in which such conduct occurs, it may be considered by the court, not in calculating an alimony award, but in the initial determination of whether alimony should be allowed at all." 

Since Mrs. Calbi's actions were not deemed to be intentional, either in the criminal court or the family court, she was not precluded from receiving alimony no matter how contemptible or aberrant her conduct was. 

That said, if this conduct will not terminate alimony, then there is little by way of fault that would do so. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)