The purpose of an alimony award is “to assist the supported spouse in achieving a lifestyle that is reasonably comparable” to the marital standard of living. Crews v. Crews, 164 N.J. 11, 16 (2000). The court has the power to modify an alimony award based on changed circumstances. Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 146 (1980); see also N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 (providing that support orders “may be revised and altered by the court from time to time as circumstances may require”). Since the goal of an alimony award is to enable the dependent spouse to maintain the standard of living the parties enjoyed while married, that standard serves as the “touchstone” for adjudicating motions to modify the alimony award. Glass v. Glass, 366 N.J. Super. 357, 370-71 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 180 N.J. 354 (2004).

The support award will be decreased to the extent it is unnecessary to maintain the standard of living of the dependent spouse. Lepis v. Lepis, supra, 83 N.J. at 152-53. Thus, a significant improvement in the financial circumstances of the dependent spouse is a changed circumstance warranting reconsideration of a support award. Glass v. Glass, supra, 366 N.J. Super. at 371 (stating that “‘a significant change for the better in the circumstances of the dependent spouse,’ [] may obviate the need for continued support” (citation omitted)). However, the change must be “significant” and not a “modest” increase in income. Id. at 379.

The burden is on the litigant seeking a modification of the support award to first make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances. Crews v. Crews, supra, 164 N.J. at 28. Once a prima facie showing has been made, the court may order any necessary discovery and conduct a plenary hearing to resolve any questions of fact. Lepis v. Lepis, supra, 83 N.J. at 157-59. Whether to modify an alimony award based on changed circumstances rests in the sound discretion of the family court. Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17, 21 (App. Div. 2006).

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to Polish-speaking and other clients in Fanwood 07023; Garwood 07027; Kenilworth 07033; Roselle Park 07204; Roselle 07203; Elizabeth 07201; Linden 07036; Plainfield 07060; Rahway 07065; Summit 07901; Westfield 07090; Clark 07066; Cranford 07016; Scotch Plains 07076; Somerville 08876, New Jersey.

Technorati Tags: alimony, alimony-modification, changed-circumstances, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

The support award will be decreased to the extent it is unnecessary to maintain the standard of living of the dependent spouse originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on November 5, 2009.

In order to impute income, the court must make a finding that the party is voluntarily underemployed without just cause. Dorfman v. Dorfman, 315 N.J. Super. 511, 516 (App. Div. 1998). The party must be “intentionally failing to earn that which he or she is capable of earning.” Ibid. The imputation of income is discretionary and requires the judge to “realistically appraise” the party’s job prospects and earning capacity. Storey v. Storey, 373 N.J. Super. 464, 474 (App. Div. 2004).

See related Blog Post, published in the New Jersey Family Law blog.

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

Technorati Tags: alimony, alimony-modification, imputed-income, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

In order to impute income, the court must make a finding that the party is voluntarily underemployed without just cause originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on November 5, 2009.

A party seeking modification of a support order “has the burden of showing such ‘changed circumstances’ as would warrant relief from the support or maintenance provisions involved.” Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157 (1980). “A prima facie showing of changed circumstances must be made before a court will order discovery of an ex-spouse’s financial status.” Ibid.

An increase in support is necessary when “changed circumstances substantially impair the dependent spouse’s ability to maintain the standard of living reflected in the original decree or agreement.” Id. at 152-53. Therefore, “the marital standard of living is an essential component in the changed-circumstances analysis when reviewing an application for modification of alimony.” Crews v. Crews, 164 N.J. 11, 25 (2000). Our standard of review is highly deferential given the “special jurisdiction and expertise” of the family court. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998).

There is no per se rule regarding inflation. See Crews, supra, 164 N.J. at 32. Inflation is a change in circumstances only if it “substantially affects [the] supported spouse’s ability to maintain a lifestyle comparable to the marital standard of living.” Ibid.

Alimony modifications are not intended to allow a dependent spouse “to share in the post-divorce good fortune of the supporting spouse.” Id. at 29. Only after the dependent spouse has made the requisite prima facie showing of changed circumstances should the supporting spouse’s “‘ability to pay become a factor.’” Id. at 28 (quoting Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 152 (1980)). Hence, the payor’s increased earnings are irrelevant.

Also, prior to allowing discovery, economic mediation and a plenary hearing, there must be a prima facie showing of changed circumstances. Dorfman v. Dorfman, 315 N.J. Super. 511, 515 (App. Div. 1998).

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

Technorati Tags: alimony-modification, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

Alimony modifications are not intended to allow a dependent spouse to share in the post-divorce good fortune of the supporting spouse originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on October 27, 2009.

Support orders are subject to increase or reduction when the party seeking modification shows that the relief is warranted. Lepis, supra, 83 N.J. at 157. The changes relevant are those that substantially affect need and ability to pay. Id. at 151, 155. Circumstances such as income, employment, disability with impact on earning capacity or living expenses, changes in the children’s needs and emancipation of a child are relevant. Id. at 151-52.

One who seeks modification can establish a sufficient change based upon circumstances that have an impact on either party’s need and ability to pay or “a combination of changes on the part of both parties which together have altered the status quo which existed at the time of the entry of the support order under review.” Stamberg v. Stamberg, 302 N.J. Super. 35, 42 (App. Div. 1997). ^[1]

A temporary change is generally deemed inadequate to warrant modification of support. Lepis, supra, 83 N.J. at 151. Nonetheless, there is limited precedent for suspension of support for a defined period related to a specific circumstance warranting a suspension. For example, the court has approved such measures in cases where the payor’s ability to meet the support obligation is due to a term of incarceration or the payee’s need for support is diminished by his or her incarceration or a period of cohabitation warranting retroactive modification for that period. Calbi v. Calbi, 396 N.J. Super. 532, 543-44 (App. Div. 2007); Kuron v. Hamilton, 331 N.J. Super. 561, 572 (App. Div. 2000); Garlinger v. Garlinger, 137 N.J. Super. 56, 65 (App. Div. 1975).

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

Technorati Tags: alimony, alimony-modification, changed-circumstances, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

1. In Stamberg, the court suggested measures judges should employ when submissions on a motion for modification indicate a need for discovery of the other party’s income or assets or competent evidence to support a claim. 302 N.J. Super. at 42. There are other options as well. See Rule 5:5-4(a) (specifying documentation required for motion to modify support).

One who seeks modification of support can establish a sufficient change based upon circumstances that have an impact on either party’s need and ability to pay or a combination of changes on the part of both parties which together have altered the status quo which existed at the time of the entry of the support order under review originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on September 21, 2009.

Picture by unforth

Maria P. Imbalzano, Esq. from Stark & Stark’s Divorce Group, authored the article, Post-Judgment Motions To Modify Support in a Poor Economy, which was published in the New Jersey Law Journal.

In these times of economic turmoil, familiarity with the concepts discussed is very important — the article is available HERE.

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

Technorati Tags: alimony, alimony-modification, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

Motions to modify support during modern economic times originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 3, 2009.

“Whether circumstances have really changed so as to warrant modification requires a court to study the parties’ financial condition at the time of the divorce as well as at the time of the application. Where the change is involuntary, all that is required is an analysis of the alterations in the parties’ financial circumstances.” Deegan v. Deegan, 254 N.J. Super. 350, 355 (1992). Where the change in circumstances is voluntary, the court must consider the reasonableness of the moving party’s actions in voluntarily retiring and reducing income. Ibid.

The focus is on the obligor’s ongoing financial ability to meet his alimony obligation. Storey v. Storey, 373 N.J. Super. 464, 469 (App. Div. 2004).

Income and assets of an obligor’s current spouse may be considered in determining alimony. See Rolnick v. Rolnick, 262 N.J. Super. 343, 357-59 (App. Div. 1993).

If applicable, the payor has the burden of proof to demonstrate a disability to warrant modification of his alimony obligation. Golian v. Golian, 344 N.J. Super. 337, 338 (App. Div. 2001). In this case, while plaintiff testified as to his carpal tunnel syndrome and his partial hearing loss, he offered no evidence of the impact of these conditions on his ability to work; moreover, plaintiff testified that he had pursued an alternative means of producing income.

The principal consideration on a motion for termination or reduction of an alimony obligation is the supporting spouse’s ability to pay. Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408, 420 (1999).

Also, an increase in the cost of living constitutes a “changed circumstance” warranting modification of support. Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 151 (1980).

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to Polish-speaking and other clients in 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.

Technorati Tags: alimony, alimony-modification, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

If applicable, the payor has the burden of proof to demonstrate a disability to warrant modification of his alimony obligation originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 21, 2008.

Courts have consistently rejected requests to modify financial obligations based on “circumstances which are only temporary or which are expected but have not yet occurred.” Lepis, 83 N.J. at 151. The party moving for the modification bears the burden of making a prima facie showing of changed circumstances. Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408, 420 (1999).

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to clients in Union, 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; and Carteret 07008, New Jersey.

Technorati Tags: alimony-modification, child-support-modification, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

Requests to modify financial obligations based on circumstances which are only temporary or which are expected but have not yet occurred will be rejected by the court originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on April 4, 2007.