Newburgh [Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982)] factor four, a parent’s ability to pay, is acknowledged to be the most significant with regard to college contribution. See Moehring v. Maute, 268 N.J. Super. 477, 481 (Ch. Div. 1993); Weitzman v. Weitzman, 228 N.J. Super. 346, 357 (App. Div. 1988), certif. denied, 114 N.J. 505 (1989).

A trial judge’s authority to impute income in the process of assessing child support is well-established. The Child Support Guidelines indicate that the “‘[t]he fairness of a child support award . . . is dependent on the accurate determination of a parent’s net income. If the court finds that either parent is, without just cause, voluntarily underemployed or unemployed, it shall impute income to that parent . . . .” Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-A to R. 5:6A at 2504 (2012).

In deciding whether to impute income, a court considers:

(1) what the employment status and earning capacity of that parent would have been if the family had remained intact or would have formed,
(2) the reason and intent for the voluntary underemployment or unemployment,
(3) the availability of other assets that may be used to pay support, and
(4) the ages of any children in the parent’s household and child-care alternatives.

[Ibid.]

A trial court’s decision to impute income must be “based on a realistic assessment of capacity to earn.” Storey v. Storey, 373 N.J. Super. 464, 474 (App. Div. 2004).

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 726 West Saint Georges [W. St. Georges] Avenue (Route 27), Linden, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-486-2200; EM@IL

A trial court’s decision to impute income must be based on a realistic assessment of capacity to earn originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on January 24, 2012.

The Child Support Guidelines, Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-A to R. 5:6A at 2505 (2012) permits the court to impute income to a party who is underemployed based on potential employment and earning capacity, using the parent’s work history, occupational qualifications and educational background. If potential earnings cannot be determined, the court may impute income based on the parent’s most recent wage or recorded benefit. Ibid. Alimony awards must take into account earning capacity. Mahoney v. Mahoney, 91 N.J. 488, 504-05 (1982).

“Imputation of income is a discretionary matter not capable of precise or exact determination but rather requiring a trial judge to realistically appraise capacity to earn and job availability.” Storey v. Storey, 373 N.J. Super. 464, 474 (App. Div. 2004). Imputation is in the discretion of the court, based on the evidence presented. Sternesky v. Salcie-Sternesky, 396 N.J. Super. 290, 307-08 (App. Div. 2007). A trial judge’s decision to impute income of a specified amount will not be overturned unless the underlying findings are inconsistent with or unsupported by competent evidence. Gordon, supra, 380 N.J. Super. at 76; Rolnick v. Rolnick, 262 N.J. Super. 343, 359-60 (App. Div. 1993).

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to clients in Fanwood 07023; Garwood 07027; Kenilworth 07033; Mountainside 07092; New Providence 07974; Roselle Park 07204; Roselle 07203; Elizabeth 07201; Linden 07036; Plainfield 07060; Rahway 07065; Summit 07901; Westfield 07090; Berkeley Heights 07922; Clark 07066; Cranford 07016; Hillside 07205; Scotch Plains 07076; Springfield 07081; Union 07083; Winfield; Carteret 07008; Dunellen 08812; East Brunswick 08816; Edison 08817; Jamesburg 08831; Metuchen 08840; New Brunswick 08901; Old Bridge 08857; Perth Amboy 08861; Sayreville 08871; South Amboy 08878; South River 08877; Avenel 07001; Colonia 07067; Iselin 08830; Woodbridge 07095; Somerset 08873; Somerville 08876 and Watchung 07069, New Jersey.

The court may impute income to a party who is underemployed based on potential employment and earning capacity, using the parent’s work history, occupational qualifications and educational background originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on January 17, 2012.

Child Support Guidelines, Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-B to R. 5:6A at 2521 (2012), provides that the “value of in-kind benefits” may be included in gross income for purposes of calculating child support. “In-kind” income is the “value of goods, services, or benefits received in lieu of wages and in the course of employment” and which “reduce personal living expenses of the recipient.” Id. at 2522.

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to clients in Union, Middlesex, Somerset, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, and Morris counties in NJ.

The value of in-kind benefits may be included in gross income for purposes of calculating child support originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on January 17, 2012.

In Platt v. Platt, 384 N.J. Super. 418, 422 (App. Div. 2006), the plaintiff controlled a business and “determined the salary he would be paid each year.” In that case, the court found it was reasonable for the trial court to average plaintiff’s income over a five-year period, including the two most recent years after the divorce complaint was filed, because he “chose to drastically reduce” his income even though his business was “doing well financially.” Id. at 426-27.

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator in Linden, Union County, New Jersey.

It may be reasonable for the trial court to average income over a five-year period originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on January 5, 2012.

The imputation of income to a party in a matrimonial case is within the trial court’s discretion, and any such imputation of income will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Robertson v. Robertson, 381 N.J. Super. 199, 206 (App. Div. 2005).

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator in Linden, Union County, New Jersey.

The imputation of income to a party in a matrimonial case is within the trial court’s discretion originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on December 16, 2011.

A judge may impute income to a party for both alimony and child support if the party is voluntarily unemployed without just cause. Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250, 268 (2005).

The decision to impute income is a discretionary matter, wherein the judge must endeavor to determine not only ability to earn income but also the availability of employment. Storey v. Storey, 373 N.J. Super. 464, 474 (App. Div. 2004).

The appellate court reviews a decision to impute income in accordance with the abuse of discretion standard. Overbay v. Overbay, 376 N.J. Super. 99, 106-07 (App. Div. 2005).

The threshold issue is whether the unemployed party has just cause to remain without employment. Caplan, supra, 182 N.J. at 268. This inquiry is fact-specific; however, income will be imputed to a spouse who once enjoyed substantial income from a position requiring expertise but declines to seek other employment following cessation of that employment. Caplan, supra, 182 N.J. at 267.

Income may also be imputed to a mother of young children following consideration of her earning capacity, child care alternatives and part-time employment opportunities. Bencivenga v. Bencivenga, 254 N.J. Super. 328, 331-32 (App. Div. 1992).

By contrast, imputation of income may not be appropriate if the spouse loses employment, immediately seeks new employment, and ultimately accepts a job for less money after receiving and rejecting offers paying even less income. Dorfman v. Dorfman, 315 N.J. Super. 511, 516-17 (App. Div. 1998).

Once a judge determines that it is appropriate to impute income to a party, the judge must determine an appropriate amount of income to impute. Caplan, supra, 112 N.J. at 270.

The imputed income should be the amount the spouse is capable of earning not the actual amount of that spouse’s income. Halliwell v. Halliwell, 326 N.J. Super. 442, 448 (App. Div. 1999).

Data on prevailing wages from sources about which the court can take judicial notice, such as the New Jersey Department of Labor, are considered competent evidence to support an imputed income amount. Storey, supra, 373 N.J. Super. at 475.

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator in Linden, Union County, New Jersey.

The decision to impute income is a discretionary matter, wherein the judge must endeavor to determine not only ability to earn income but also the availability of employment originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on October 8, 2011.

The imputation of additional income to either party may be unlikely where both parties were working full-time. See Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-A to R. 5:6A at 2439 (2011) (noting that to determine whether or not to impute income, the court should consider what the employment status and earning capacity of the parents would have been if they had not divorced). See, e.g., Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250, 268 (2005) (concluding that “the imputation of income to one or both parents who have voluntarily remained underemployed or unemployed, without just cause, will promote a fair and just allocation of the child support responsibility of the parents”). All issues must be addressed by the judge, however, and reasons given for all decisions.

NOTE: My legal services include family law, divorce, child support, litigation, arbitration, mediation, child custody and visitation, alimony, equitable distribution, separation agreements, palimony, PSA, property settlement agreement, premarital and prenuptial agreements, midmarriage and marital agreements.

The imputation of additional income to either party may be unlikely where both parties were working full-time originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on June 29, 2011.

A determination of disability by the Social Security Administration constitutes a prima facie showing of disability. Golian v. Golian, 344 N.J. Super. 337, 342-43 (App. Div. 2001).

NOTE: Adwokat / Prawnik Pawel Kostro mowi po polsku.

A determination of disability by the Social Security Administration constitutes a prima facie showing of disability originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on June 29, 2011.

The court is permitted to impute income to a parent whose income cannot be determined. Ibrahim v. Aziz, 402 N.J. Super. 205, 210 (App. Div. 2008).

The court may impute yearly income based on New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development statistics.

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to clients in Union, Middlesex, Somerset, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, and Morris counties in NJ.

The court is permitted to impute income to a parent whose income cannot be determined originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on May 20, 2011.

In computing alimony or child support, tasks particularly within the Family Part’s realm of expertise, “[i]ncome may be imputed to a party who is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.” Golian v. Golian, 344 N.J. Super. 337, 341 (App. Div. 2001). “Imputation of income is a discretionary matter not capable of precise or exact determination but rather requiring a trial judge to realistically appraise capacity to earn and job availability.” Storey v. Storey, 373 N.J. Super. 464, 474 (App. Div. 2004). In deciding if income should be imputed, the judge must determine “whether the [spouse] has just cause” for remaining voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250, 268 (2005). In assessing just cause, the judge should assess factors such as the ages of the children and “the reason and intent for the voluntary underemployment or unemployment.” Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-A, Comment 12 at 2439 (2011).

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator in Linden, Union County, New Jersey.

In deciding if income should be imputed, the judge must determine whether the spouse has just cause for remaining voluntarily unemployed or underemployed originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on May 14, 2011.