Picture by mirsasha

The county probation departments are only authorized to collect spousal or child support. R. 5:7-4(b). The county probation department may not be involved in matters related to the collection of funds stemming from equitable distribution.

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: spousal-support, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

Picture by etrenard

Alimony and support orders define only the present obligations of the former spouses, those duties are always subject to review and modification on a showing of ‘changed circumstances.’ Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 146 (1980). Importantly, consensual agreements and judicial decrees are reviewed under the same standard of changed circumstances. Id. at 148. Thus, “the extent of the change in circumstances, whether urged by plaintiff or defendant, shall be the same, regardless of whether the support payments being questioned were determined consensually or by judicial decree.” Smith v. Smith, 72 N.J. 350, 360 (1977).

Where the PSA is “silent on the issue of cohabitation and its impact on spousal support,” the court must “decide the issue based on decisional law rather than by construing the settlement agreement.” Ozolins v. Ozolins, 308 N.J. Super. 243, 247-48 (App. Div. 1998).

An application for modification of a PSA is governed by the same standard as the original judgment of divorce. Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408, 420 (1999). That is, “[w]hen support of an economically dependent spouse is at issue, the general considerations are the dependent spouse’s needs, that spouse’s ability to contribute to the fulfillment of those needs, and the supporting spouse’s ability to maintain the dependent spouse at the former standard.” Lepis, supra, 83 N.J. at 152.

“[O]ne of the procedural prerequisites to discovery and a hearing in a modification proceeding under Lepis is an initial showing of changed circumstances.” Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149, 155 (1983). Cohabitation constitutes such changed circumstances. Ibid.; see also Ozolins, supra, 308 N.J. Super. at 248 (citing Lepis, supra, 83 N.J. at 151) (“[C]ohabitation by a supported spouse may constitute changed circumstances justifying discovery and an evidentiary hearing.”). The test for whether cohabitation warrants modification of the alimony award is based on economic needs. Gayet, supra, 92 N.J. at 155.

A decrease in alimony is appropriate “when circumstances render all or a portion of support received unnecessary for maintaining” the “standard of living reflected in the original decree or agreement.” Lepis, supra, 83 N.J. at 153. Alimony modification is appropriate where “‘(1) the [cohabitant] contributes to the dependent spouse’s support, or (2) the [cohabitant] resides in the dependent spouse’s home without contributing anything toward the household expenses.’” Ozolins, supra, 308 N.J. Super. at 248 (quoting Gayet, supra, 92 N.J. at 153).

Significantly, “a showing of cohabitation creates a rebuttable presumption of changed circumstances shifting the burden to the dependent spouse to show that there is no actual economic benefit to the spouse or the cohabitant.” Id. at 245.

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to clients in Rahway 07065; Summit 07901; Westfield 07090; Berkeley Heights 07922; Clark 07066; Cranford 07016; Hillside 07205; Scotch Plains 07076; Old Bridge 08857; Perth Amboy 08861; Sayreville 08871; South Amboy 08878; Woodbridge 07095; Somerset 08873; Somerville 08876 and Watchung 07069, New Jersey.

Technorati Tags: alimony, changed-circumstances, cohabitation, property-settlement-agreement, psa, spousal-support, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

Picture by Ramona.Forcella

The doctrine of necessaries is a common law rule imposing liability on both spouses for the debt of one spouse, provided that the debt was incurred for “necessaries” for the family, and the debtor spouse is unable to pay the debt. Jersey Shore Med. Ctr. v. Baum, 84 N.J. 137, 141 (1980). A necessary is a good or service provided to one spouse that benefits both. Id. at 141-49. The doctrine derived from the common law rule requiring a husband to support his wife. Id. at 141. The duty to support imposes liability on the husband for necessaries furnished to the wife because the expenses incurred by the wife presume a failure on the part of the husband to provide necessaries for her. Id. at 142. The doctrine is applied equally to both husbands and wives. Id. at 148-49. It provides:

[B]oth spouses are liable for necessary expenses incurred by either spouse in the course of the marriage. . . . [T]he financial resources of both spouses should be available to pay a creditor who provides necessary goods and services to either spouse. . . . [A] judgment creditor must first seek satisfaction from the income and other property of the spouse who incurred the debt. If those financial resources are insufficient, the creditor may then seek satisfaction from the income and property of the other spouse.

[Id. at 141.]

=================

But see: National Account Systems, Inc. v. Mercado, 196 N.J. Super. 133 (App. Div. 1984) (Wife not liable for the hospital bills of her husband from whom she had been separated for four years).

See related article by Donald D. Vanarelli, Esq.: Insolvent Estates and Related Issues

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: necessaries, spousal-debt, spousal-support, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin