The defendant claimed the economic downturn and changes in technology caused him to end up "under water" financially. However, even if these claims were uncorroborated, the New Jersey divorce judge could take judicial notice of them, pursuant to New Jersey Rule of Evidence 201(b). Galante v. Galante, New Jersey App. Div., March 20, 2015.
This case reviews current New Jersey family law on retirement modification and emphasizes the variables that must be considered, when deciding whether to terminate or reduce alimony upon a payor’s retirement. The overriding factor remains whether the benefit to the payor outweighs the detriment to the payee.Cusick v. Cusick, New Jersey App. Div., June 27, 2014
Because the ex-husband proved he did everything possible to restore his income, the New Jersey divorce judge was correct in reducing both child support and alimony payments to the ex-wife. Moreover, the decision was based on documentary evidence, without a hearing, and this is affirmed on appeal. D'Alessandro v. D'Alessandro, New Jersey App. Div., June 23, 2014
The New Jersey ex-husband failed to disclose whether he was receiving bonuses or equity or performance-based compensation, in addition to his low salary. Accordingly, his post divorce application to modify alimony was properly denied. Huang v. Huang, New Jersey App. Div., July 31, 2013
Jamie McCourt is unhappy with the deal she cut with her ex-husband Frank and is asking the court for a do-over. She claims she was duped over the valuation of the Los Angeles Dodgers, the baseball team she and her husband used to own. As part of her divorce settlement with Frank, Jamie agreed to a $131 million payment, which she received after the team was sold. McCourt v. McCourt, January 7, 2013
In view of the major changes in his income from before to after the New Jersey divorce, the ex-husband was entitled to a trial as to whether his alimony should be reduced because of (a) his new employment after a 17 month job search and (b) the ex-wife should contribute to her own support.Austin v. Austin, New Jersey App. Div., December 5, 2012