New Jersey Family Law

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

TEANECK NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT REDUCTION

He was a physician whose license had been suspended and who was currently unemployed. He proved a substantial change of circumstances warranting reduction of child support and alimony. Moreover, the New Jersey divorce judge's imputation-of-income analysis was erroneous. He erred in considering incomes earned by physicians, especially surgeons, at a time when defendant was legally prohibited from practicing. On remand, because the physician's suspension has now ended, evidence of his current occupational status and earning capacity should be considered. Consideration must also be given to the effect of the suspension on the ex-wife's expectation of limited duration alimony.     Sender v. Sender, New Jersey App. Div., January 7, 2008

MORRISTOWN NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION ALIMONY

The ex-wife moved to convert rehabilitative alimony to permanent alimony. The New Jersey divorce judge analyzed the parties’ financial history and concluded that the ex-wife, a physician, was not a financially dependent spouse but had an income comparable to the ex-husband, also a physician. Thus, rehabilitative alimony reflected the period during which her income would remain depressed because of the need for recovery from a leg injury she sustained. The motion was properly denied because her unsubstantiated certification of a slump in business income – unsupported by documentation and explained only by the broad generalization that fewer births occurred geographically - was insufficient to sustain her claim of economic dependence. Nor did the court abuse its discretion in awarding the ex-husband counsel fees. Those fees were due to his repeated attempts to obtain her compliance with prior awards.       Jones v. Duch, New Jersey App. Div., December 19, 2007

CEDAR GROVE NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE SUPPORT ARREARS LAWYER

The court denies the ex-husband's current request for relief from an order entered in 1995, more than twelve years ago, compelling him to pay the ex-wife child support arrears. A 2005 audit by the Probation Dept. showed that the full sum was still owed, in addition to almost $5,000 in alimony, yet the defendant moved for relief, contending he paid the monies directly to plaintiff a decade earlier. The trial judge correctly found the relief request came far too late and was barred by the doctrine of laches.   Tegethoff, etc. v. Tegethoff, New Jersey App. Div., December 3, 2007

NEW MILFORD NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE ALIMONY ATTORNEY

Fatally beating a child in an alcoholic rage does not reach the level of fault that would justify ineligibility for alimony under New Jersey law. "Nothing . . . prevents the Legislature from amending the alimony statute to specify that a former spouse's criminal act in taking the life of one of the parties' children per se disqualifies the ex-spouse from receiving alimony. But do not read the present statute nor the analogous case law to create that automatic disqualification" This ruling permits Linda Calbi, who pleaded guilty to second-degree aggravated assault for a violent altercation that caused the death of her son, to reapply for alimony after her anticipated release from prison in November 2008.     Calbi v. Calbi, ___N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2007); New Jersey App. Div., November 23, 20007 <http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nj/Calbi.pdf>

EDGEWATER NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER MEDIATION

The New Jersey divorce judged denied the ex-wife's motion for an increase in alimony. But this was done without oral argument, which was requested by both parties. A plenary hearing is necessary here -- where there are contested issues of material fact based on conflicting affidavits -- in order to fairly and fully resolve the question of whether an actual change in circumstances has occurred. Liberman v. Liberman, New Jersey App. Div., November 12, 2007

WAYNE NEW JERSEY PASSAIC COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER ALIMONY

Does the ex-husband have the "the realistic ability" to earn the $170,000 in imputed annual earnings "in 2007 and in the foreseeable future" ? The case is remanded for further proofs in a plenary hearing to determine this issue. It was error for the New Jersey divorce judge to deny the application because there were genuine and material issues of fact that required "an evidentiary re-evaluation of the parties' financial circumstances." Although the ex-husband had "severely failed to give appropriate priority and attention to his support obligations," denial of the application on the papers was incorrect.    Hawley v. Levine, New Jersey App. Div., November 7, 2007

CHATHAM NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE ALIMONY LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judge committed error in granting additional alimony to the ex-wife. This was based substantially, if not solely, on the ex-husband's increased income. Although the provision in the New Jersey divorce agreement permitted her to seek an increase based on the level of his income, the court still had to review her current standard of living vis-à-vis her standard of living during the marriage and at the time of the divorce.       Villone v. Villone, New Jersey App. Div., November 2, 2007

LIVINGSTON NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATOR ALIMONY LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judge denied the wife's request for alimony. That decision is now reversed. The trial judge erred in determining that, based upon assets she acquired through equitable distribution, income from employment and investments, as well as assets she acquired through inheritance, there was no basis to award alimony to plaintiff, irrespective of the duration of the marriage.    Morse v. Morse, New Jersey App. Div., October 30, 2007

HOBOKEN NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY DIVORCE ALIMONY LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judge conducted a 4 day bench trial and concluded the wife was entitled to permanent alimony. He weighed the length of the marriage, the income disparity and economic needs of the parties, their future income earning abilities, the disproportionate division of assets equitably distributed and the function of permanent alimony to provide for lost earning capacity experienced during the marriage when employment was limited, as here, due to the demands of raising a family. The judge did not err not more heavily weighing the parties' emotional estrangement, which existed while they resided together, independently providing for the needs of the children. The quality of the marital relationship is not dispositive when determining an alimony award.    Sexton v. Sexton, New Jersey App. Div., October 22, 2007