New Jersey Family Law

KEARNY HUDSON COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY

The New Jersey divorce judge denied the ex-husband's motion to modify his support obligation under the parties’ settlement agreement. Because he did not establish a prima facie case of a material change in circumstances, the decision is affirmed. The unemployment in question was temporary and the ex-wife’s mere attainment of a master’s degree did not justify the imputation of income to her.     Davidson v. Davidson, New Jersey App. Div., April 25, 2008

ESSEX FELLS ESSEX COUNTY NEW JERSEY ALIMONY LAWYER

Where a well-educated, capable litigant has refused to find suitable employment to meet his child support obligations, income should be imputed to him in accordance with his ability to earn income consistent with his education and skills. Voluntary underemployment should be disregarded in calculating support and arrearages. However, in calculating arrears, the court should take into account a lump sum payment apparently made by him to avoid incarceration.    KhatKhat v. Hussein, New Jersey App. Div., April 18, 2008

GUTTENBERG HUDSON COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER MEDIATION

How long was the New Jersey divorce opinion? 110 pages. No wonder that the Appellate Division had no difficulty in affirming. The parties contested virtually everything -- including custody of the 5 youngest of their 7 children, child support, alimony, equitable distribution, counsel fees and whether plaintiff would be permitted to relocate to New York. The trial judge's findings were detailed because of the likelihood "this case [would] have a long exposure in the courts well after [his] decision [was] rendered." The decision provided background information on the marriage, the procedural history of the case, and defendant's abuse of alcohol, and thoroughly analyzed each of the disputed issues.   Haddad v. Haddad, New Jersey App. Div., April 14, 2008

RINGWOOD PASSAIC COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

Why did the New Jersey divorce judge fix the ex-husband's income at $200,000 per year? The court reverses the denial of his post-divorce motion to modify alimony and child support and remands for more detailed findings of fact, including a hearing if necessary, to determine actual income, the value of perquisites and benefits and whether defendant is underemployed in his present position.     Casole v. Casole, New Jersey App. Div., April 8, 2008

WESTFIELD UNION COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judge correctly interpreted the New Jersey divorce agreement and directed defendant to pay plaintiff, his former wife: (1) 40% of his total net overtime earnings as additional alimony; (2) half of the funds he liquidated from a Dreyfus investment account, earmarked in that agreement for the children's college expenses; and (3) alimony in the amount of $900 per month, reduced by his child support obligation.     Purnell v. Purnell, New Jersey App. Div., April 3, 2008

ROSELAND NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE ALIMONY COUNSEL FEES

This New Jersey divorce case involved a 26 year marriage. The husband appealed from the New Jersey judgment of divorce that granted alimony and denied counsel fees. The ex-wife suffered from Lupus, had sustained two strokes, and was determined to be disabled by the United States Social Security Administration. Accordingly, the court held that no income should be imputed to her. Plaintiff bore the burden of overcoming the presumption of defendant's disability and he failed to do so. Defendant had no means to pay a counsel fee award . In any event, applying the appropriate factors, each party should pay his or her own attorney fees.     Reader, Jr. v. Reader, New Jersey App. Div., February 20, 2008

PARSIPPANY NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY ALIMONY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judgment required the ex-husband to  pay $500 per week in permanent alimony. On appeal, this decision is affirmed. The New Jersey divorce judge did not err in applying the ex-wife's "projected standard of living" when calculating her need, nor in considering the impact of equitable distribution and her full earning capacity. Moreover, the alimony award was fully justified based on his own earning capacity before the marriage and his earning capacity established during the marriage. The alimony award was "fully justified" in light of these considerations and the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b).      Majkrzak v.  Majkrzak, New Jersey App. Div., February 13, 2008

SHORT HILLS NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE ALIMONY MODIFICATION ATTORNEY

This was the 18th post-judgment motion filed since the parties' 2002 New Jersey divorce. Here, the ex-husband sought to reduce alimony obligation and to adjust the parties' percentage shares of their two minor children's unreimbursed medical expenses. The alimony was set at 7 years of limited duration, to expire next year. Moreover, the father's income has only slightly fallen since the original award, and the mother's has only slightly increased; the father still earns almost double the salary of the mother. This did not represent a sufficient change of circumstances to justify relief. Nor is there any reason to alter the 55%-45% split as to the children's unreimbursed medical expenses, which remains substantially equitable. Finally, the award of counsel fees to the mother is not unreasonable under the circumstances.     La Venuta, etc. v. La Venuta, New Jersey App. Div., February 4, 2008

MOUNTAIN LAKES NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY ALIMONY LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judge was correct in denying the ex-husband's 2007 motion seeking to terminate his permanent alimony obligation to his former wife, and for reimbursement of past alimony paid to her. Although the 61-year-old indicated that his health had deteriorated, the judge had already found in 2005, on a similar motion, that, while his disability had changed, his financial ability to pay had not. The motion for reconsideration was denied as untimely, and he filed again in 2007 for the same relief. The appeal is dismissed, because there was a failure to prove that the current motion was demonstrably different from the 2005 motion. Absent proofs, this was nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the denial of his untimely reconsideration motion.           Colello v. Colello, New Jersey App. Div., February 1, 2008

MORRIS PLAINS NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE ATTORNEY ALIMONY

The New Jersey divorce judge properly included the ex-husband's bonus received for 2005 in fixing future alimony. Although the bonus had not yet been set for 2006, based on defendant's employment history and compensation arrangements, he did not establish there would be no bonus in the future. A trial judge, while calculating a supporting spouse's alimony obligation, may determine the amount of alimony based on the supporting spouse's base salary, coupled with the dependent spouse receiving a percentage of any future bonuses. Because the payor always has the right to move to modify if his income is lower than anticipated, the use of this flexible method may reduce future motion practice based on changed circumstances concerning the amount of the supporting spouse's future bonuses.    Suchenski v. Suchenski, New Jersey App. Div., January 10, 2008