Child Support Guidelines - Attach the Worksheet

One of the most common questions people ask when settling their divorce matter is, how do we figure out what the child support payment is going to be?  Well, as set forth in one of our recent blog posts found here, Child Support Guidelines in New Jersey control where parties combined net after tax income is less than approximately $185,000.  As also set forth in that prior entry, while a custodial parent cannot bargain away their right to child support and there generally cannot be an agreement to pay less than that set forth in the Guidelines, there may be an enforceable agreement to pay more.  Apparently, an agreement to pay more may hold true even where the number agreed upon was inadvertently higher than required.

In resolving child support, it is critical for the settling parties to set forth in the Marital Settlement Agreement the basis for how child support was reached - such as whether support was calculated pursuant to the Guidelines, as well as attach to the Agreement the Child Support Guidelines worksheet itself.  This will clarify whether the child support number set forth in the Agreement was part of an overall settlement of the parties' parenting and financial issues or, by contrast, a unilateral or mutual mistake of the parties.

The perils of not following these basic steps can be costly, as recently addressed by the Appellate Division in Haskoor v. Haskoor.  There, the parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement resolving their custody and financial issues.  A weekly child support amount was included, as well as terms addressing the husband's parenting time.  Less than 2 years after following the divorce, the wife sought to reduce the husband's parenting time while increasing his child support obligation.  In responding, the husband indicated that it was at that time that he first realized that the "sole parenting worksheet" rather than the "shared parenting worksheet" had been used to calculate child support in the settlement agreement, thereby obligating him to pay a higher level of child support.  The husband also argued that the sole parenting worksheet applied used the wrong amount of alimony.   

In affirming the trial court's denial of the husband's motion, the Appellate Division relied on principles of finality and equitability associated with settlement agreements negotiated between parties, noting that the husband had agreed to the child support set forth in the PSA as part of the overall settlement.  Notably, the PSA did not state that support had been calculated pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines, nor did it refer to any prepared support worksheet.  Interestingly, the Appellate Division noted that, even if there did exist some form of mistake, rescission of the entire agreement, rather than a mere decrease in his child support obligation as sought by the husband, would be the proper remedy. 

The recent blog post referenced above addressed the Appellate Division's decision in Foster v. McGee, which dealt with a related scenario.  There, the husband had researched child support when the parties settled, proposing a number he thought was in line with the Guidelines.  The settlement agreement, unlike that in Haskoor, even indicated that the support level was determined after considering the Guidelines.  Ultimately, however, the husband miscalculated support, obligating himself to a far higher weekly payment number than what the Guidelines called for.  That circumstance was somewhat different from the situation in Haskoor where the husband, who was represented by counsel, allegedly did not realize that the wrong Guidelines worksheet was attached, having left the preparation of calculations to his attorney. 

Ultimately, both cases produced the same result - no relief to the husband despite an argument that a mistake had been made.  As indicated at the beginning of this entry, the lessons to be learned include 1) detailing in the settlement agreement a basis for how child support was reached; and 2) an attachment of the Guidelines worksheet to clear up any claim of mistake.

 

Divorce From Bed and Board - New Jersey's Answer to Legal Separation?

Many times I have been asked whether New Jersey has a form of legal separation.  The answer?  The closest form of legal separation is what is known by statute as divorce from "bed and board," also known as a "limited divorce."  In simple terms, it means that two spouses have obtained a divorce from a financial standpoint, but they are still actually, legally married.  Assets are distributed, support is determined.  Notably, both parties must agree and request to a divorce in this form pursuant to the divorce from bed and board statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-6. 

The statute even says that the grounds upon which the divorce is based are the same available in a standard divorce situation.  As the parties are still legally married, they can then later reconcile, apply for a revocation or suspension of the Judgment of Divorce or, should no reconciliation occur, either may apply to the court for a conversion of the divorce from bed and board to that of a standard divorce "from the bounds of matrimony."  The conversion application must be granted to the requesting party.   A divorce from bed and board allows each party to acquire property free of the rights that the other party would have if there were no divorce in place.  Similarly, such a divorce prevents a spouse from inheriting the other spouse's property at that spouse's death where there existed no Will.

This type of divorce was recently at issue in Pipitone v. Pipitone, an unreported (not precedential) decision from the Appellate Division holding that the bed and board statute does not mandate that an alimony award, entered into years after the bed and board divorce, must be deemed retroactive to the date of the bed and board divorce order.  Simply put, such an award is prospective only.  The Appellate Division reasoned that, in a situation where one spouse attempts to convert a bed and board divorce into an divorce from the bounds of matrimony or "absolute" divorce, there is an opportunity to revisit the support and distribution terms of the prior property settlement agreement.

While the property acquisition freedom associated with a bed and board divorce may be beneficial to some, many people avoid this antiquated concept and prefer to end the bonds of matrimony with an absolute divorce so that the legal attachment to the other that remains with a bed and board divorce no longer exists.