New Jersey Family Law

HOBOKEN NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY DIVORCE ATTORNEY ALIMONY RETIREMENT

The New Jersey divorce judge was correct in denying the ex-husband's motion to terminate his permanent alimony obligation after his voluntary retirement at age 59. The alimony payments are needed by the ex-wife in order to maintain her marital standard of living.  She earns approximately half of what he earns, she has recurring health problems due to childhood polio and she cannot access her own full pension benefits until she is 66. To compel her to lose the alimony benefit negotiated just recently and depend solely on her equitable distribution share of his retirement income would be unfair. The ex-husband's early retirement was foreseeable. He failed to address it in the New Jersey divorce negotiation and she should not suffer from that omission.     Quigley v. Quigley, New Jersey App. Div., February 7, 2008

MORRIS PLAINS NEW JERSEY DIVORCE RETIREMENT ATTORNEY

To determine whether voluntary retirement constitutes a change in circumstances that justifies reducing a child support obligation, the New Jersey divorce judge developed a multifactor test by modifying the variables that apply to reducing alimony based on early retirement. Applying the new test, the New Jersey divorce judge denied the father’s motion to reduce his child support obligation based on his voluntary retirement at age 61.    Lissner v. Marburger, New Jersey Ch. Div., June 13, 2007

EDGEWATER DIVORCE EARLY RETIREMENT

The ex-wife filed a post judgment motion to enforce the payment of alimony. The ex-husband had lost his 30 year job as an insurance broker earning $340,000 per year, but a private investigator revealed he had substantial assets with which to make alimony payments, including 2 pieces of real estate valued at over $1 million each, and a $365,000 condominium in Tennessee purchased 4 months after he stopped working. He was also involved in two corporations, information he had not previously disclosed. She claimed he voluntarily retired and made no good faith efforts to find suitable employment. HELD : he continuation of alimony was affirmed and the cross-motion to reduce or terminate alimony was properly denied. There was a failure to make a prima facie case of substantially changed financial circumstances . In addition to the real estate, the ex-husband has 2 luxury cars and a boat. Moreover, he failed to prove he was involuntarily discharged, as opposed to taking an early retirement package; and he failed to provide sufficient evidence he could not find new employment.     O'Donovan v. O'Donovan, New Jersey App. Div., May 18, 2007

WEST ORANGE DIVORCE LAWYER

When addressing a spouse’s equitable distribution claim against the other spouse’s police disability pension, the New Jersey divorce court must determine which portion of the pension represents a retirement component in which the claiming spouse may share and which portion represents compensation for the retired spouse’s personal disability and personal economic loss. Avallone v. Avallone , 275 N.J. Super. 575 (App. Div. 1994) reaffirmed. Because the statute governing the pension plan does not set forth a procedure for making that determination, the trial court should explore options such as limiting the amount subject to equitable distribution to the retired spouse’s contributions to the pension. The Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System should identify which portion of a disability pension is intended to be exclusively compensatory.   Larrison v. Larrison, New Jersey App. Div., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (2007); April 4, 2007

HACKENSACK DIVORCE MEDIATOR

The New Jersey divorce judge properly denied the ex-husband's motion to terminate his alimony obligation, based on his age (55) and the depressed economic status of the airline industry, which allegedly prevented him from obtaining other work as a pilot when he retired from the Air Force Reserves. But his retirement from the military had been anticipated in the parties’ agreement at the time of the New Jersey divorce. Therefore, although it represented a change of circumstances, it did not present sufficient grounds for alimony termination.     Bosch v. Alles-Bosch, New Jersey App. Div., January 17, 2007

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE : SOCIAL SECURITY

The plaintiff-father sought a reduction in child support after the New Jersey divorce because of a drastic reduction in his income and health issues, and because his daughter would begin to receive $858 per month in Social Security benefits due to his imminent retirement.  Since the Family Part judge did reduce his obligation by the $858 per month, the appellate panel affirms, but remands for a plenary hearing on whether a further reduction is warranted.   Polimeni v. Polimeni, New Jersey App. Div., February 8, 2006

New Jersey Divorce Retirement

At the time of their New Jersey divorce, he was 62 and had already received notice terminating his employment. He also had made known his intent to retire at age 65. He had been unable to find new employment and was subsisting on Social Security payments, paying alimony only by drawing on the equity in his real estate holdings. Under these circumstances, it was error to deny his application to reduce/eliminate his alimony obligation [1] without a hearing, [2] without considering critical evidence and [3] without evidentiary support on significant factual issues.  Moore v. Moore, New Jersey App. Div., September 9, 2005

Early Retirement

Where the ex-husband had long ago indicated his intention to take early retirement at age 59 due to heart problems, and sought to terminate his alimony obligation, the trial judge found that the decision was made in good faith for rational medical reasons. However, the voluntary early retirement had a significant negative impact on the ex-wife, which outweighed the benefit to the ex-husband. A more reasonable retirement age would have been 62.  McCarron v. McCarron, et al., New Jersey App. Div., July 20, 2005

Give Me A Break

He had retired at age 70. His only income was Social Security benefits and interest from a bank account. So he made a motion to have his alimony payments terminated. She opposed the motion by claiming he was also getting income from the sale of realty he received through equitable distribution at the time of the divorce. The trial court granted the application, terminated the alimony and was affirmed on appeal. There was "no sufficiently concrete basis" to create a genuine question as to whether he was earning substantially more income than he claimed. Lachenmayer v. Lachenmayer, New Jersey Appellate Division, A-1603-03T1, June 17, 2005

Retire or Work?

Most retirement assets are subject to equitable distribution. Here, because an actual retirement date was reasonably expected and relied upon for equitable distribution at the time of the parties’ New Jersey divorce, the pension earning ex-husband, who decided to continue working beyond his expected retirement date, can be compelled to provide the ex-wife spouse with pre-retirement payments of her share of the pension for each month that he voluntarily elects to work, rather than retire. Moore v. Moore, New Jersey App. Div., ___N.J. Super___ (App. Div 2005); 2005 WL 767015; April 8, 2005.