New Jersey Family Law

WEST MILFORD NEW JERSEY PASSAIC COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION

The ex-husband was 73 and claimed to be in deteriorating health, which limited his ability to practice medicine. He had sold both the former marital home and the condominium he had bought after the New Jersey divorce, and he alleged that his current financial circumstances warranted a reduction in his support payments. The application was denied because he failed to submit a Case Information Statement, or any other financial information, and thereby failed to present a prima facie case warranting a plenary hearing.     Thelmo v. Thelmo, New Jersey App. Div., January 18, 2008

CONVENT STATION NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION

The ex-husband, an insurance broker, wanted to decrease his support payments, based on a decrease in his income due to claimed changes in the insurance industry. Although his income did fluctuate over the years, he offered no documentary proof of his contentions regarding the insurance market, or regarding other employment opportunities. The New Jersey judge also found that the alleged change in earning capacity was neither permanent nor involuntary. Therefore, the burden of proof for establishing changed circumstances was not met. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the judge's denial of modification of child support for the parties' older child, who now lives away at college for a significant part of the year.    Cifrese v. Cifrese, New Jersey App. Div., December 10, 2007

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

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

WEST ORANGE NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE ATTORNEY ALIMONY

The New Jersey divorce judge denied the ex-husband's request for retroactive termination of his alimony obligation, with a thorough discussion of the ex-wife's alleged cohabitation, rejecting termination on that basis. However, the judge prospectively granted termination as of the date she "permanently" procured a job with an income greater than his. Nevertheless, the orders entered below give three different dates for the prospective termination; and, even if the final date is used, the court finds that there are inadequate reasons given for use of that date, requiring remand.  Sweeney v. Sweeney, etc., New Jersey App. Div., July 18, 2007

CRESSKILL NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judge correctly imputed income to the ex-husband and denied his motion seeking termination of alimony and a reduction of his child support obligation based on an alleged reduction of income from $115,000 to $70,000 per year. Although the judge recognized that the reduction was significant, he found that, given defendant's age, educational and professional background, and his earnings history, defendant was voluntarily underemployed, thus artificially depressing his ability to earn income commensurate with his marketable skills.     Hartigan v. Hartigan, New Jersey App. Div., July 12, 2007

MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER LIMITED DURATION ALIMONY

The New Jersey divorce judge correctly imputed income to the ex-husband for purposes of determining his obligation to pay limited duration alimony to the ex-wife. Although he said he sold his share of the family business to his brother, the evidence indicates he retained some interest or was at least still actively involved in the business, a largely cash concern, making it easy to hide income. But the amount and duration of the alimony award---$450 per week for 10 years -- are reversed and remanded, for fact-finding on the marital standard of living and her actual need for support.    Ceca v. Ceca, New Jersey App. Div., June 19, 2007

HOBOKEN NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER ALIMONY MODIFICATION

This case was twice remanded by the New Jersey Appellate Division for reconsideration of alimony and allocation of the parties' liabilities. The New Jersey divorce judge entered an order, without holding a hearing, directing the ex-husband to pay the ex-wife $250,000 per year in alimony. This time, there was a comprehensive 53 page opinion with detailed findings of fact and appropriate conclusions of law. The opinion included a worksheet showing the court's calculations. Now, the ex-husband's application to modify alimony is properly denied for failure prove sufficiently changed circumstances.  Milgraum v. Milgraum, New Jersey App. Div., June 8, 2007

SUMMIT NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ALIMONY MODIFICATION

The New Jersey divorce judge denied the ex-husband's motion to modify his alimony obligation . But this was error and is reversed, because the judge made credibility findings based solely on the parties' competing certifications, which raised issues not only as to income, but cohabitation, inheritance and other issues which might ultimately have an impact on the alimony decision. Singleton v. Singleton, New Jersey App. Div., June 1, 2007

WESTFIELD DIVORCE ATTORNEY

The New Jersey divorce judge correctly denied the ex-husband's motion to reduce support payments. He was an oral-maxillofacial surgeon who lived in the New Orleans area, and the parties’ New Jersey divorce agreement based his support on income of $215,000 per year. He earned $215,238 in 2005, including $65,238 after Hurricane Katrina, so the record fully supported the conclusion that the ex-husband had not established a prima facie case of changed circumstances. And, in light of the 2005 income, the trial court did not misapply its discretion by denying his request for attorney’s fees.    Wilk v. Wilk, New Jersey App. Div., April 5, 2007