Author: jeory

Does a child’s attendance at college away from home warrant a reduction of child support? This question was the basis for a recent Opinion by the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.

On February 4, 2013, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court issued an important opinion concerning the future of “palimony”.

When is marital fault so egregious that it negates an obligation to pay alimony? Certain conducts such as infidelity, mental cruelty or desertion have languished in the dustbin of New Jersey divorce law for decades. So, what’s left to shock the conscience to the degree that a court denies alimony to an otherwise dependant spouse?

On October 11, 2012, a New Jersey Appeals Court issued a decision of interest to divorce lawyers, alimony payers and recipients. In Foley v. Foley (A-0292-11T3), the Court was called upon to consider the length of time a person paying alimony to a former spouse would need to be unemployed before having the right to seek a modification of alimony.

On September 6, 2012, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court issued an opinion on the thorny subject of a former spouse’s right to continue receiving alimony if he/she is cohabiting with a person outside of marriage.

n a decision rendered on August 3, 2012, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey held that a person has no legal right to compel his former spouse to cease using his surname despite a written agreement between the parties to that effect.

Under New Jersey divorce law, all assets “acquired by the parties or either of them during the marriage” are subject to equitable distribution at time of divorce. While most assets can be valued in a straightforward manner, a more elusive asset consists of a spouse’s interest in a business, especially with respect to the “goodwill” component.

In an important decision, New York U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jones has determined that the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In 1962, the United States Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis, which created difficulties for divorcing parties and attorneys. Although, there was no sale and no money changing hands, the transfer of appreciated property in exchange for marital rights was considered to be a “sale” with the transferor liable for payment of capital gains taxes. The gain was determined by the fair market value of the asset on the date of the transfer with the transferor deemed to have received the value equal to that portion of the fair market value transferred to the other spouse. Conversely, the transferee was charged with neither gain nor loss because the marital rights relinquished were not “appreciated property,” even though these rights were considered to be equal in value to the value of the property received. Thus, the transferee of appreciated property received it on a “stepped up” basis equal to the fair market value of the property received.

Alimony comes in many forms, including permanent, rehabilitative, limited duration, reimbursement and temporary (pendente lite) support. It is important to recognize that whether payments qualify as alimony under federal tax law is determined by the characteristics of the payment and not by how they are labeled under state law.