Articles in the ‘Child Support’ Category
In this post judgment proceeding the former husband overpaid the former wife about $35,000.00 child support. The trial court agreed and entered judgment in favor of the former husband. The former wife argued that given the amount of time that passed, around 7 years, the former husband was estopped from seeking credit and laches applied. The trial court failed to address the wife’s argument in it’s decision or order. The Appellate Division reversed the ruling and remanded to the trial court to make a determination on the equitable arguments advanced by the former wife. Mayer v. Mayer, New Jersey App. Div., January 25, 2013
The New Jersey’s Supreme Court ordered the release of a Hunterdon County man who had been jailed for more than eight weeks for falling behind in his alimony and child support payments and for failing to pay arrears. In a 5-2 vote the high court granted the petitioner’s application for a stay pending the disposition of his appeal to the Appellate Division. While family court judges are generally loathe to incarcerate the supporting spouse for non-payment, as this can in fact cause more financial harm in the form of lost income or even loss of employment itself, the Hunterdon man was ordered to be jailed after he had fallen approximately $60,000 behind in his support payments.
It is important to recognize that falling behind on support payments is a violation of a court obligation. Support enforcement actions can lead to serious consequences including wage garnishment, loss of professional and driver’s licenses and incarceration.
In another brilliant well reasoned opinion by Judge Lawrence Jones approved for publication, a custodial parent may collect support arrears by way of levy and writ of execution against her ex-spouse’s minority membership interest in a Limited Liability Company [LLC]. Leonard v. Leonard, N.J. Super. (Ch. Div. 2012)
The Appellate Division determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion imputing $65,000.00 per year income to the former wife, a nurse for child support purposes but found it was error to impute $35,000.00 per year of income to the husband, a painter. Toth v. Janssen, New Jersey App. Div., September 20, 2012
The Appellate Division determined it was reversible error for the trial court to use the child support guidelines [Rule 5:6A] to determine the support obligation for college students living away from home. Jacoby v. Jacoby, Decided July 11, 2012
This case provides reinforcement to the court’s ability to allocate tax dependent exemption benefits following the principles in Gwodz v. Gwodz, 234 N.J. Super. 56 (App. Div. 1989). Zera v. Krushinski, New Jersey App. Div., May 22, 2012
This case represents another well thought analytical opinion written by Judge Jones who is assigned to the Family Part-Ocean County. The novel issue before the court was where parties initially consent to an above-guideline level of child support in their settlement agreement and there are post-divorce changed circumstances warranting a support review, do the child support guidelines apply? Judge Jones determined the guidelines initially apply. However the court may look above the guidelines applying equitable factors including the parties decision to deviate from the guidelines. Musico v. Musico, N.J. Super. (Ch. Div. 2012); New Jersey Ch. Div., May 11, 2012
This case represents a good illustration that the child support guidelines excluding “non-income producing assets” from income determination for child support purposes. Lizak v. Lizak, New Jersey App. Div., April 2, 2012
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s determination granting the father’s request to reduce his child support obligation however found the judge erred not allowing full retroactivity pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23a back to the original motion filing date translating to a credit to the father in the sum of $20,000. Vaughan v. Vaughan, New Jersey App. Div., April 4, 2012
Former husband demonstrated substantial changed financial circumstances warranting downward modification of his child support obligation, however the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s determination for a limited remand to reconcile the discrepencies between submissions for overnight parenting time whether it was 50, 94 or 104 per year. Deckert v. Deckert, New Jersey App. Div., February 27, 2012