Having done this for as long as I have, many times, I have seen motions to modify alimony or child support due to job loss denied because the payor did not provide “enough.” Not enough job applications or resumes sent? Not enough time since the job was lost. Not enough detail about who you spoke to, when you spoke to them, whether you got an interview, whether an offer was made, and if not, when you heard back.

As a result, we often counsel clients to prepare detailed spreadsheets with as much backup as possible so the issue of “enough” is not an issue.

Separately, the issue of enough time was somewhat resolved when the statute was amended in 2014, as it provides:

Under circumstances where the changed circumstances arise from the loss of employment, the length of time a party has been involuntarily unemployed or has had an involuntary reduction in income shall not be the only factor considered by the court when an application is filed by a non-self-employed party to reduce alimony because of involuntary loss of employment. The court shall determine the application based upon all of the enumerated factors, however, no application shall be filed until a party has been unemployed, or has not been able to return to or attain employment at prior income levels, or both, for a period of 90 days. The court shall have discretion to make any relief granted retroactive to the date of the loss of employment or reduction of income.

Back to the issue of what is enough to present, the following passage comes from an interesting unreported (non-precedential) Appellate Division case entitled decided Lopez-Grajales v. Barrios-Godinez, on February 23, 2026, which held:

Plaintiff’s contention that his circumstances prevented him from obtaining stable employment is supported by documents indicating low earnings over a four-year period and records of unsuccessful job searches. Defendant disputes these proofs. When there is a genuine dispute regarding the accuracy of the financial circumstances of the parties and the supporting party’s ability to secure gainful employment, a hearing is necessary. See Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102, 105 (App. Div. 2007) (a hearing is required when there “is a genuine and substantial factual dispute . . . .”). At the preliminary stage, where prima facie proof is the standard, it is not necessary that plaintiff show in detail those employers with whom he was able to secure an interview or the specific means by which he made contact. Those aspects of plaintiff’s application are better explored at a plenary hearing

Now when the Supreme Court decided Cardali, the cohabitation case, in 2023, they made a point of stating that the bar to prove a prima facie case to get discovery and a plenary hearing is not a high one. That said, both before and after Cardali, I have seen judges honor that mandate in the breach and force people to not only prove prima facie, but there entire case, on a motion.

This case is a reminder that the dispute at the time of the motion should not be “questions” about the bona fides of the moving party’s proofs – but rather, if true, they would be enough to get past step one and move on to discovery and a hearing. Rather, those issues are properly addressed at trial.

_______________________________

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Department of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys. Eric is resident in Fox Rothschild’s Morristown, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973) 994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.