Articles Posted in Alimony

daughterAfter a recent divorce judgment in New Jersey, a husband appealed, arguing for reversal. He claimed that the wrong income had been used to calculate alimony and that his actual earnings were lower. He also claimed his wife committed perjury when she testified he didn’t pay for the family’s expenses and misrepresented how much time he spent with the kids, including the overnights he spent. He also argued for the disqualification of the trial judge because he’d talked about his impending retirement with the wife’s attorney at the end of the default hearing.

The couple had married in 2000 and had three kids, all of whom were minors at the time of the divorce. The wife sued for divorce in 2015. The couple didn’t own much property beyond their home, which was in foreclosure, as well as cars and limited retirement accounts.

The wife and her attorney came to a default hearing, at which the husband didn’t appear. The hearing addressed a number of issues that were in the wife’s notice of proposed final judgment. She was seeking sole legal and residential custody of their kids and half of their assets. She also wanted to have open durational alimony, to have the kids’ medical insurance be paid by the husband, and to be compensated for a number of other costs. She only submitted foreclosure correspondence, pay stubs, and documents subpoenaed from the husband’s employer about his earnings. The mother’s case information statement wasn’t put into evidence, although the judge referenced it.

Continue reading

nienke-2-1370519-e1508189157797In a recent New Jersey appellate decision, a couple that married in 1999 had three kids. After a divorce trial, the father was awarded custody of the kids and the mother had to pay child support for the three kids. The father  had to pay the mother$300 each week in rehabilitative alimony.

The father moved to terminate alimony based on a change in circumstances. This motion was denied. Later the father tried against to end alimony and increase child support, but the wife filed a for primary residential custody of two of the kids, enforcement of the alimony order, and recalculation of support for the kids. The judge reduced the alimony payments and increased child support among other things.

The judge ordered a hearing on child supporting, parenting time, custody and alimony. In his order, the judge found nothing had changed significantly since the divorce judgment. The judge did find the plaintiff improved her economic situation by finishing her education, getting her degree and getting a job, but that this didn’t dispose of the custody issue. The judge also noted that the plaintiff had a difficult relationship with her oldest daughter and that the couple was reluctant to split the children up. The plaintiff’s motion for change of residential custody and ordered child support based on the guidelines’ sole parenting worksheet.

Continue reading

childIn a recent New Jersey divorce decision, a wife appealed from post-judgment orders. The case arose after the parties got married and then divorced almost 15 years later. They had one child and entered into a marital settlement agreement that set forth the equitable distribution of assets, alimony, and child-related issues like child custody, child support, and visitation.

In 2015, the ex-husband moved the court for various remedies, including terminating or reducing his alimony obligation to his ex-wife. The ex-wife opposed and cross-moved. The court ordered the former couple to economic mediation and established temporary child support from the ex-wife to the ex-husband in the amount of $40 per week. The former couple went to mediation but couldn’t resolve their differences.

In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking specified financial documents from the defendant. The defendant opposed the motion.

dogIn a recent New Jersey alimony case, a father appealed from three post-judgment orders requiring him to pay additional alimony and additional child support from 2010-2013 in line with a marital settlement agreement. The couple had divorced in 2010 after a marriage that lasted 15 years and resulted in two kids, who were teens at the time of divorce.

The parties were divorced in 2010 after 15 years of marriage and two children, both now teenagers. The father was a high-earning specialist in financial services. He’d been laid off but also gotten hired again at the same or higher level of compensation. The mother was a product manager earning more than $80,000 by the end of the marriage.

The mother and father were represented by attorneys during the divorce, and the attorneys had negotiated the marital settlement agreement, which was more than 30 pages long. There were 10 paragraphs about alimony and child support. These included a provision in which the husband would pay base child support for the calendar year and also pay additional child support of 8% from the gross amount of the bonus, incentive award, deferred compensation, or other form of compensation until the kids were emancipated.

Continue reading

bouquetIn a recent New Jersey alimony decision, a couple entered into a marital settlement agreement that gave them limited durational alimony of $120,000 per year for five years, paid out in installments of $10,000 per month, and included waivers of the right to get a modification or termination of the agreement. The agreement didn’t include a provision about what would happen with alimony if the wife remarried.

The dual final judgment of divorce incorporated their agreement. When the plaintiff remarried the following year, the husband stopped making alimony payments to her. The ex-wife moved to enforce his alimony obligation the following year. He cross-moved to terminate the obligation, effective on the date of her remarriage. She argued that the alimony obligation wasn’t affected by her remarriage and that he could only stop paying upon death or the expiration of the limited duration term.

The settlement agreement called the alimony obligation non-modifiable and non-terminable for five years and stated that it could not be modified under any circumstances. It also stated that the ex-wife was free to cohabit and that the ex-husband had waived the right to apply for a modification in case the plaintiff cohabited as defined under existing law. There was also a mutual waiver of the right to modify alimony during the five-year term, even if the parties’ income increased or decreased, or they cohabited with an individual of the opposite sex or had children with someone else or retired. There was no reference, however, to remarriage. The defendant argued that since there was no reference to remarriage, there was no agreement to waive the right to modify the agreement or terminate it in case of remarriage.

Continue reading

graveIn a recent New Jersey divorce case, the defendant challenged the equitable distribution of marital assets and the alimony that had been awarded to him, as well as other rulings. The couple had been married for 24 years. The plaintiff was 56 years old and still working, while the defendant was 79 and retired. The plaintiff earned $92,419 each year as income, and the defendant got $13,000 yearly in the form of Social Security benefits.

The couple went to trial, at which the court awarded the defendant $27,500 each year as open durational alimony. The court allocated to each of the spouses equal shares of their personal property, an investment account, a pension, and marital credit card debt. The court ordered the couple to sell a Buenos Aires apartment that the defendant expected to be worth $350,000. The couple was also ordered to share college loans for their child, and the court required the defendant to pay 40% of the child’s college costs for his senior year. The plaintiff could keep the defendant’s share of the investment account to satisfy these obligations.

The defendant appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence presented at trial for the alimony and support rulings as well as the equitable distribution ruling. The appellate court explained that alimony shouldn’t be a factor in determining equitable distribution, even though equitable distribution was a factor in alimony. The defendant claimed the court had improperly distributed their marital assets, among other things.

watching-time-1238392-e1500318003248In a recent, unpublished New Jersey appellate case, a husband appealed an order that denied his motion to get rid of his alimony obligation or reduce it. The order also provided that the husband had to maintain a $300,000 life insurance policy naming the wife as a beneficiary according to the couple’s Interspousal Settlement Agreement. The husband also had to pay $2000 to the wife’s attorney.

On appeal the husband argued it was improper for the trial court not to grant his request that alimony be terminated without making adequate findings under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23j(3), and by improperly considering assets he got as part of equitable property contrary to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23j(4). The husband also argued that due to his good faith retirement and the terms of the Interspousal Settlement Agreement, the court had made a mistake in asking to continue to maintain a $300,000 life insurance policy.

The husband also argued that the court made a mistake in awarding a counsel fee to the wife. He further argued that the court made a mistake by not conducting a plenary hearing on the issue of alimony, life insurance and counsel fees.

Continue reading

ringsYou may be bound to your Bergen County ex long after your divorce. Therefore, it is critical to pursue a workable result in connection with alimony and child support at the time of your divorce.

In the unpublished opinion of Corrello v. Corrello, a New Jersey court considered a post-judgment matrimonial case. The defendant challenged a family court order that recalculated his alimony and child support obligations and contested other provisions. The plaintiff also challenged the order at hand and earlier orders.

The couple had married in 1992 and had four children. The wife sued for divorce, and a 15-day trial was held in 2004, after which their divorce was entered. While married, the wife had worked as a financial analyst with a salary of about $33,000 per year. She stopped working when she had their first child, but she got a part-time job earning $4,330 per year in 2002, when she filed for divorce. At trial, the judge determined she was underemployed and could work for $50,000 per year. The defendant was a police officer and earned about $81,000 at the time of the couple’s divorce.

Continue reading

snowy houseIn a recent unpublished New Jersey appellate case, a defendant appealed an order arising out of a divorce trial that awarded his wife alimony, child support, and equitable distribution. He argued that the court had made a mistake in how it calculated his imputed income, and this had affected the alimony award. He also argued that it was improper for the court to order him to pay back taxes on an investment property and that two of the lower court judges were biased.

The couple had married in 1989 and had a son and daughter together. The wife sued for divorce in 2011. During the trial, the plaintiff presented testimony from her expert, a certified public accountant who’d worked on her taxes, and a forensic accountant. The first had tried to determine her income but stated that he was lacking necessary information. The defendant claimed he’d provided information to his accountant, but the accountant denied getting those documents.

The expert reviewed the defendant’s income taxes and determined much had not been reported to the IRS. He also used data from a Risk Management Associates (RMA) database, which included information collected by banks on many different industries. The expert used the RMA’s average gross profit margin for electronics retail stores that have $1 million in sales, which was 44.5% , in order to adjust the sales and net income from the husband’s business.

Continue reading

coupleIn the unpublished opinion of Tomicki v. Tomicki, a New Jersey appellate court considered rulings related to alimony and property division in a divorce. The couple had married in 1994 and had one child. They divorced in 2010, and their divorce judgment incorporated a property settlement agreement that required the husband to pay $800 each month in alimony to the wife.

The husband appealed various rulings related to the divorce. He argued that the trial court should have granted his request for termination of alimony, emancipated his daughter, provided relief regarding the ex-wife’s failure to reimburse her share of maintenance for their time share, and ordered reimbursement of $4,604 as compensation for the overpayment of his ex-wife’s share of his pension.

The husband argued that his ex-wife’s yearly income had gone up by almost $30,000. Although the trial judge had concluded that this was a claim that represented a chance in circumstances that needed examination, the judge denied relief because the husband didn’t submit a case information statement. The husband tried to provide an updated statement, in which he claimed that he suffered from chronic pain and that his wife’s annual income had increased, while her expenses decreased, and in which he claimed that she was coming into an inheritance.

Continue reading