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.

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.

A Family Part judge has broad, but not unlimited, discretion in awarding alimony. The judge’s discretion must be channeled to take into account the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23b and decisional law defining the purposes of alimony. Steneken v. Steneken, 367 N.J. Super. 427, 434 (App. Div. 2004), aff’d as modified, 183 N.J. 290 (2005). An alimony determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Ibid.

In computing alimony, a task 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). “Such a finding is requisite, before considering imputation of income.” Dorfman v. Dorfman, 315 N.J. Super. 511, 516 (App. Div. 1998).

NOTE: Adwokat / Prawnik Pawel Kostro mowi po polsku.

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 August 2, 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.

A payor who has the ability to earn a living, yet refuses to work, may not assert the inability to earn as grounds for paying a reduced amount of support. See Golian v. Golian, 344 N.J. Super. 337, 341 (App. Div. 2001) (allowing income to be imputed to a party “voluntarily unemployed or underemployed” without “just cause”). The court’s focus is not just on a payor’s present earnings, but his or her potential for future earnings. Mowery v. Mowery, 38 N.J. Super. 92, 102 (App. Div. 1955), certif. denied, 20 N.J. 307 (1956).

NOTE: Adwokat / Prawnik Pawel Kostro mowi po polsku.

A payor who has the ability to earn a living, yet refuses to work, may not assert the inability to earn as grounds for paying a reduced amount of support originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on April 19, 2011.