Articles
Articles in the ‘Alimony’ Category
10 Year Limited Durational Alimony Appropriate for 12 1/2 Marriage
Appellate Division affirmed trial court’s determination ordering 10 years of limited duration alimony (LDA) in this 12½ year marriage. Newman v. Newman, New Jersey App. Div., January 12, 2012
Good Faith Retirement Merits Review of Alimony Obligation
The Appellate Division determined it was reversible error for the trial court to summarily reject the 61 year-old ex-husband’s motion to terminate his alimony payments due to his retirement. McPhillips v. McPhillips, New Jersey App. Div., December 16, 2011
Alimony Downward Modification Due to Decrease Employment Income
Alimony payor demonstrated a substantial decrease in employment income giving rise to the trial court reducing his alimony obligation to the former wife payee. Persaud v. Persaud, New Jersey App. Div., December 16, 2011
Post Complaint Financial Momentum and Alimony
In this trial court decision (approved for publication on November 1, 2011) Judge Jones ruled on a pre-trial motion that if spousal income increases after the filing of a divorce complaint and before the trial takes place, that increase may be counted in determining alimony. Judge Jones focused on the legal principle “momentum of the marriage” tracking upward movement of the husband’s income during the latter years of the marriage continuing a trend of increasing the marital lifestyle. Dudas v. Dudas, New Jersey Ch. Div., November 1, 2011
Alimony and Marital Standard
This case provides a good overview to the interplay between alimony and the marital lifestyle standard. It also affords an insightful analysis to the legitimacy claiming family loans as a marital debt. Bogdan v. Bogdan, New Jersey App. Div., May 10, 2011
Support Modification and Marital Lifestyle
Both at the time of the entry of divorce and again when a future increase or reduction of alimony is sought the marital standard of living is critical to the analysis. Rains v. Rains, New Jersey App. Div., September 15, 2011
Post Judgment Alimony Modification
Parties were divorced in 1997. At the time the husband was earning around $47,000.00 per year and wife about $8,500.00. Husband filed a motion to terminate alimony based on his discovering the wife was now earning the same income as him. Trial court denied the request. The Appellate Division finding the court should have ordered a post judgment hearing affording the parties to exchange financial discovery. The case represents the obligation of a court to also review other provisions contained in a PSA to determine whether the type and amount of alimony was negotiated in lieu of a spouse receiving something else, i.e., equitable distribution. Leuth v. Leuth n/k/a Mortenson, New Jersey App. Div., July 7, 2011
Post Judgment Alimony Modification
This case illustrates the need for a trial court to make specific findings of fact employing the alimony statutory factors contained in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23b when considering an application for modification based on substantial changed circumstances. Crescenzo v. Crescenzo, New Jersey App. Div., August 15, 2011
Alimony and Bonus Payments
It was reversible error for the trial court to award 30% of any annual bonus payment as additional alimony. The Appellate Division affirmed the court’s award for durational alimony as opposed to permanent alimony noting the statutory and factual analysis undertaken by the judge reaching that result. As to the annual bonus, however, although the court’s intent is clear, the propriety of the award is not. The judge did not make findings of fact or engage in legal analysis as to the seventy percent-thirty percent distribution. The court did not offer a rationale other than stating it would be considered “additional alimony to the wife.” Given that the judge fixed the monthly amount of support based on plaintiff’s monthly expenses, on this record plaintiff does not appear to need additional support. Singh v. Saini, New Jersey App. Div., April 19, 2011
Alimony and Child Support-Downward Modification
Thsi case reaffirms the principle that a payor spouse is as much entitled to a reconsideration of the alimony and child support obligation where there has been adverse financial impact on the payor and a significant financial change for the better of the payee. Cantelme, f/k/a Archetti v. Archetti, New Jersey App. Div., April 1, 2011
