Modification of Child Support

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ve seen many a post about changes in circumstances and modifications of support obligations.  In fact, Apple Sulit-Paralejo in our Atlantic City office recently published a post on the Ferstenfeld decision. The thing is with changed circumstances,  in this economic climate and job market, it is a popular topic for courts and new decisions are being delivered on a fairly frequent basis.

Today’s post is about proving the change in circumstances and stems from the unpublished Appellate Division decision of Romito v. Romito, A-0486-09, decided March 29, 2011. This appeal came from an Essex county trial court decision made after Mr. Romito filed what was at least his second motion to reduce his alimony and child support obligations stemming from a 2002 divorce and property settlement agreement.

Mr. Romito’s application was supported by his Certification attesting to the failure of his remaining businesses and a sworn statement of his ability to earn $52,000/yr working for a friend’s business, similar to what he had previously operated.  It was also supported by a current Case Information Statement and copies of income tax returns.  Part of the relief sought was a hearing pursuant to Lepis v. Lepis, to prove the changed circumstances.

Ms. Romito filed a cross motion in response opposing this application and seeking other forms of economic and additional relief.  Her application was supported by a Certification attesting that she and the children were in desperate financial straits due to Mr. Romito’s failure to pay his support obligations and his unfair competition with her business.  She attested that Mr. Romito owned the business of his friend that he claimed to only work at and that he was concealing income and living a lifestyle inconsistent with his alleged reduced economic circumstances.  It was also supported by her current Case Information Statement, tax returns and proof of expenses that were not paid.

In response, Mr. Romito denied the allegations made in the cross motion and attested that Ms. Romito’s economic problems were of her own doing and stemmed from her inability to profitably run the business.  He proposed that if Ms. Romito would agree to turn the Montclair office over to him, he’d pay her $2,000/month in alimony (still a reduction from the parties’ agreement but more than he’d been paying).Continue Reading Modifying Support – Proving Changed Circumstances

In these economic times we have seen an increase in our practice of post divorce applications seeking a downward modification of a former spouse’s support obligation(s).  These applications apply to both spousal support or alimony as well as child support.

NJ courts are all to familiar with these applications as there exists an entire body of case law that guides judges, attorneys and litigants alike in the burden of proof that must be established and the standard to meet in order to successfully seek the modification or defend against one.

Recently, the Appellate Court addressed this issue once again in the unpublished decision of O’Brien v. O’Brien, A-6045-08T1 decided November 10, 2010.  This matter stemmed from an appeal of the trial court’s Orders emancipating one of the parties’ 4 children and reducing defendant-husband’s child support obligation.Continue Reading When Is a Modification of Child Support Proper?

On May 21, 2010, the Appellate Division issued a reported (precedential) opinion in Colca v. Anson involving different aspects of child support and college support.  This case reinforces several principles regarding child support and payment of college expenses that we already knew (which makes it somewhat surprising that it was reported) but nevertheless is a good reminder of certain basic principles. 

The first of these principles is that child support belongs to the child and thus cannot be waived by a parent or for that matter, by a court.  This comes up in two contexts in this case.  First, in a 2005 Order, for whatever reason, the trial court denied the father’s request for child support for the parties’ daughter who was in college.  In another motion in 2008, the father sought child support again.  Thinking that the matter had previously been decided by the court and that there were no changes of circumstances, the mother did not even file a Case Information Statement. 

The trial court disagreed with the mother’s position that the prior Order was forever binding and required a showing of changed circumstances, pointing out that the duty to support a child continues until emancipation.

In addition, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision that the child’s inheritance could not be considered with regard to support.  While perhaps correct as to child support, there are not enough facts given in this opinion about how much was really in dispute. That said, the Child Support Guidelines suggest an adjustment to child support may be required if a child has an extraordinarily high income.  Also, in the famous NJ case on college expenses, Newburgh v. Arrigo, which we have blogged on many times before, a child’s assets are a factor to be considered.  Since the college was at issue in this case, one wonders why the inheritance was not considered here.Continue Reading A Decision To Not Require Child Support Is Not Binding on Future Court To Hear Matter – Child Support Cannot Be Waived

Under New Jersey law, a party of a divorce can seek modification of an order for child support or alimony if there is a “change of circumstance” that affects the income or earning ability of one of the parties.  Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980).  This proposition is one of the most common reasons for post-judgment motions in New Jersey Family law courts, especially in the current economy.  But in a recent unpublished New Jersey Appellate Division decision, Good v. Nedza, the Court affirmed a post-trial order, which did not permit a recalculation of child support or arrears because one of the parties failed to act on information they had obtained years earlier and had at the time when the parties entered a Consent Order for child support.

In Good, the parties were divorced in 2002.  At the time, Mr. Good was the primary provider and the wife, Ms. Nedza, was a homemaker.  The parties had three children.  They agreed that Mr. Good would pay child support and alimony, and they would share joint legal custody of the children with Ms. Nedza having primary residential custody.  Over the years circumstances changed.  By September 2005, all of the children were residing with Mr. Good and his child support obligation was terminated.  A Consent Order entered in January 2006 addressed Ms. Nedza’s child support obligation to Mr. Good.Continue Reading Modification of Child Support – When to File

In New Jersey, in a family court matter, if a party’s position is unreasonable or taken in bad faith, the other party can seek reimbursement of attorney’s fees. This was the case in the recent unpublished decision of Ramirez v. Ramirez, New Jersey App. Div., Docket No. A-2035-08T32035-08T3, November 24, 2009. 

 In Ramirez, the parties were divorced by a Dual Final Judgment of Divorce entered on January 29, 2007, which incorporated a settlement agreement. Following the divorce, in three separate motions, plaintiff persisted in seeking a re-calculation of defendant’s income based upon allegations and documentation relating to circumstances that existed for several years prior to their 2007 divorce. In his December 21, 2007, decision the judge put plaintiff on notice that she had failed to establish a change in circumstances. Nonetheless, plaintiff filed a cross-motion in August 2008 and a motion for reconsideration on October 6, 2008, both of which continued to seek the same relief based upon the same allegations. As a result, defendant was compelled to incur “unnecessary costs” for which he is entitled to be reimbursed. Under these circumstances, the judge awarded and the Appellate Division affirmed the counsel fees awarded to defendant.Continue Reading Should You Make a Motion for Reconsideration?

It is no secret that our country as well as the global economy is in the midst of a downward turn. Jobs are being lost in nearly every industry and the financial world has been turned upside down.

These economic global problems have touched nearly everyone of us. For those who have a financial obligation to support a former spouse or children, the failure to comply with court Orders pertaining to their financial obligations could have dire consequences.

It is not uncommon for a new client to ask, “Will the judge really understand my situation?” or “Am I going to get a break from my financial obligations or will I be spending money on these proceedings in vain?”

Up until recently, this was a question that received different answers from attorneys and judges across this state. The courts had not handed down much guidance on whether they were viewing the current economic crisis as permanent or something temporary that would pass. Attorneys were armed with an understanding of this global problem as it affected their current clients who were in the midst of the divorce process. The stickier question pertained to those individuals who had been divorced for months or even years and could no longer afford to pay that which they agreed or had been ordered to pay.Continue Reading Applications for Modification of Support Awards