Loss of Employment and Alimony

New Jersey’s recently enacted alimony statute deals with modification of alimony in the event the payor loses his/her job through no fault of their own.

Even though this law allows a payor to seek modification once the payor has been without employment for 90 days, there is not an automatic termination or reduction. The Court must consider many factors which are set forth in the statute, which include but are not limited to:

  1. The reasons for the loss of income;
  2. The payor’s efforts to replace his or her employment or find alternative employment;
  3. The payor’s health and how it affects his or her ability to obtain employment; and,
  4. Any severance award received from the previous employer.

Read More about Loss of Employment and Alimony

Divorce and Alimony in South Jersey

Both during and after a divorce, one spouse may require financial support from the other; this financial support is known as alimony. Alimony allows the dependent spouse to maintain a lifestyle as close as possible to what the couple enjoyed during the marriage, at least until the dependent spouse is able to start supporting themselves.

In New Jersey, there are five types of alimony:

Read More about Divorce and Alimony in South Jersey

How Cohabitation Affects Alimony Payments

At the conclusion of many divorce proceedings, alimony is calculated by the court to be paid from the supporting spouse to the dependent spouse. The amount of alimony to be paid is calculated based on a variety of factors, including, among others, the length of the marriage and the martial lifestyle of the couples while married. Once calculated, alimony can typically only be modified by showing a “change in circumstances” that would warrant either the increase or decrease in alimony payments to be made. An occurrence that can be considered a “change in circumstance” is when the alimony recipient then cohabitates with another following the divorce while still receiving alimony payments.

Cohabitation situations can be frustrating to the alimony obligor (the spouse making the payments) because the alimony recipient cohabitating with another can mean two things: (1) the recipient may be using the payments to support their new partner, or (2) the recipient may be receiving financial support from their new partner in addition to the alimony received from their former spouse, essentially receiving monies from two different sources and concealing changes in their finances.

How does the law define cohabitation?

Read More about How Cohabitation Affects Alimony Payments

Modification of Alimony Due to Retirement

During the course of divorce proceedings, alimony from the supporting spouse to the dependent spouse is typically calculated based on a variety of factors. The income of the two spouses is a critical factor in determining the amount of alimony to be paid. However, some incomes are not guaranteed and can change over time. One of the most common scenarios in which the income of a spouse can change is due to retirement. Following one’s retirement, a spouse can petition the court to modify the alimony payments they either receive or pay. However, there are an additional set of factors the court must consider in permitting alimony payments to be modified if the parties were divorced prior to September of 2014.

The leading case in New Jersey addressing the modification of alimony is Lepis v. Lepis (1980), which states that “the party seeking modification [of alimony] must demonstrate that changed circumstances have substantially impaired the ability to support himself or herself.” Furthermore, the court will look at the party’s circumstances at the time of the divorce (when the alimony was determined) and at the time of application for the modification of alimony to see any differences in the circumstances between these two dates.

Because retirement is one of the leading causes for a petition for the modification of alimony to be filed, there are cases in New Jersey that have laid out a series of factors to determine whether or not the retirement of one of the spouses warrants alimony to be modified.

Read More about Modification of Alimony Due to Retirement

The Reality of Imputing Income in a Divorce Case

One of the more vexing issues in a divorce case involves determining an appropriate level of alimony or child support. If the parties’ incomes are not disputed, the task is easier, but if one or both parties are unemployed or “underemployed,” the issue of determining a fair and reasonable level of potential income arises. To assist attorneys and judges, reference is often made to the New Jersey Department of Labor statistics, which track income information over a wide job spectrum and thereby allow courts to determine imputed, as opposed to actual, income for support calculation purposes.

In the recent case of Maine v. Maine, Superior Court Judge Lawrence Jones (Ocean County) had to determine a party’s potential earning capacity in the context of a divorce action. Although the court found that Ms. Maine had recently received training to become a medical assistant and that the Department of Labor’s average income for medical assistants was $32,400 per year, it was unreasonable to immediately impute such a level of income to her. Instead, the court gave Ms. Maine a four month grace period to make a documented search for employment as a medical assistant at the conclusion of which the matter would be reheard. In the interim, the court attributed a lower level of imputed income to Ms. Maine by extrapolating her part-time earnings into a forty hour workweek.

Judge Jones’ findings admirably balanced the legal and practical issues by not leaning too hard in either direction but fashioning a result which fit the situation. While imputing income remains an important tool for lawyers, the case stands for the proposition that such an approach should be tempered with the realities of the marketplace.

How Does a Bonus Factor into Alimony?

Stark & Stark Shareholder Maria Imbalzano, member of the firm’s Divorce Group, authored the article “How Does a Bonus Factor into Alimony?,” which was published on May 27, 2015 by the U.S.1 Newspaper.

The article discusses the different types of incomes that may be looked at when calculating alimony payments, and Maria mentions that there are two ways we can deal with unknown or variable income, such as bonuses. “We can take an average of the prior three years… [or] the parties may wish to agree upon a percentage of the future bonuses that the payee shall receive.”

If the parties agree to a percentage of future bonuses, it is recommended that they consult with experienced legal counsel because “the wording of the Marital Settlement Agreement must be very specific and clear in communicating the parties’ intent.” Maria discusses the recent case of Sercia v. Sercia where the ex-wife was denied supplemental alimony due to the language in the Marital Settlement Agreement.

You can read the full article by clicking here.

Permanent Alimony vs. Open Durational Alimony

The new alimony law that was recently passed on September 10, 2014, changed one of the types of alimony from “permanent” to “open durational.” It was really just a change in semantics. Permanent alimony was never meant to be “lifetime” alimony as many clients called it. Under our previous law, permanent alimony could have been modified upon a substantial change in circumstances, such as disability, unemployment, retirement, or a change in need by the payee or change in ability to pay by the payor. Open durational alimony, which has an open term until the court terminates it or the parties agree to terminate it, generally applies to marriages over 20 years in length. This type of alimony can also be modified (reduced or terminated) upon a substantial change in circumstances.

What the new law does give us is some guidance when dealing with substantial changes in circumstances. Prior to the new law’s enactment, we only had case law to help with modification applications.

For example, retirement is a substantial change in circumstance for which modification of alimony would have been considered under case law. Under the new alimony statute, there is a rebuttable presumption that alimony shall terminate upon the payor spouse obtaining full retirement age, which is Social Security retirement age. The law also provides that the court may set a different alimony termination date if the rebuttable presumption is overcome. The factors to consider in rebutting the presumption are as follows:

  1. The ages of the parties at the time of the application for retirement.
  2. The ages of the parties at the time of the marriage or civil union and their ages at the time of entry of the alimony award.
  3. The degree and duration of the economic dependency of the recipient upon the payor during the marriage or civil union.
  4. Whether the recipient has foregone or relinquished or otherwise sacrificed claims, rights or property in exchange for a more substantial or longer alimony award.
  5. The duration or amount of alimony already paid.
  6. The health of the parties at the time of the retirement application.
  7. Assets of the parties at the time of the retirement application.
  8. Whether the recipient has reached full retirement age as defined in this section.
  9. Sources of income, both earned and unearned, of the parties.
  10. The ability of the recipient to have saved adequately for retirement.
  11. Any other factors that the court may deem relevant.

If the paying spouse retires prior to attaining full retirement age, then he/she has the burden of demonstrating that the actual retirement is reasonable and made in good faith.

Other blogs have been posted to this site on the new alimony law and how it effects other changes in circumstances such as cohabitation and unemployment.

New Life for Oral Palimony Agreements

In a long-awaited decision in the case of Maeker v. Ross the New Jersey Supreme Court has unanimously decided that oral “palimony” agreements entered into before revisionary legislation in 2010 will remain legally enforceable. The Court’s September 25 decision reversed the appellate court which had ruled that Ms. Maeker could not pursue her palimony claim against Mr. Ross due to a bill signed into law by Governor Christie in 2010 requiring all palimony agreements to be in writing. The Court has thus settled an issue closely watched by judges, lawyers and potential litigants by breathing new life into Ms. Maeker’s claim that Mr. Ross had breached their oral agreement to provide her with lifetime support.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the appellate court had erred because there was no showing the new law was ever intended to apply retroactively although it was not disputed that Ms. Maeker and Mr. Ross had more than sufficient time since 2010 to reduce their oral agreement to writing. The Court opined that upholding the lower court’s decision would “void the indeterminate number of oral palimony agreements that predated [the new law’s] enactment”. Maeker v. Ross is a significant decision which will reverberate for years to come.

How the New Alimony Law Deals with Unemployment

In the past, if a person was terminated from his or her job and wanted to modify alimony due to a change in circumstances, our courts would many times not even consider such an application until six months to a year had passed. During that time, the unemployed person would have to continue paying alimony at the ordered rate or arrears would start to accrue at an alarming rate. Also during that time, the unemployed person would have to document his or her efforts to obtain new employment and provide proof of such efforts to the court when the court felt enough time had passed to file a modification application. This amount of time was very subjective and different judges would have different thresholds, since there was no statute detailing what was an appropriate length of time before someone could file such an application. Read More about How the New Alimony Law Deals with Unemployment

Recent Changes to the Alimony Statute and Cohabitation

As John S. Eory, Esquire previously blogged, Governor Chris Christie signed into law changes to our alimony statute on September 10, 2014.

Prior to the new alimony statute, the law of the State of New Jersey surrounding the issue of an alimony recipient’s cohabitation was defined by our Courts.  Under the previous case law, if a recipient of alimony was cohabitating with a paramour, the payor of alimony could file an application with the Court to modify or terminate their alimony obligation.  Modification or termination of alimony depended on a two prong burden-shifting test, the first of which required a finding of “cohabitation” of the dependent spouse by the Court.  Such a finding gave rise to the rebuttable presumption that the financial needs of the dependent spouse have been reduced.  The burden of proof shifted to the dependent spouse to show that his or her economic circumstances were not improved as a result of the cohabitation.  This second prong consisted of a fact-specific evaluation of the reduced financial need of the dependent spouse based upon the economic effect of his or her cohabitation. Read More about Recent Changes to the Alimony Statute and Cohabitation

Blog Categories