New Jersey Divorce Lawyers Blog

March 5, 2015

New Jersey Court Affirms Order Allowing Primary Caretaker to Relocate Couple’s Twins Out of State

A primary caretaker’s job offer warranted the removal of a divorced New Jersey couple’s minor children to another state. In a recent Appellate Division ruling, a couple married in 2005 and had twins in 2009. At the time of their marriage, both spouses were employed by an investment banking firm. Not long after their wedding, however, the husband lost his job and remained unemployed until he filed for divorce in 2011. During this time, the wife earned about $300,000 per year.

About one year after the father initiated divorce proceedings, his former wife lost her job effective December 31, 2012. She was also promised a bonus and severance package worth approximately $200,000. Following a divorce trial, the couple reached a custody settlement that was incorporated in their Dual Final Judgment of Divorce (“DJOD”). In September 2012, the family court entered a final judgment of divorce which provided that the mother was designated as the Parent of Primary Residence (the “PPR”) and the father as the Parent of Alternate Residence (the “PAR”).

March 5, 2015

New Jersey Husband’s Social Security Disability Payments Not Enough to Show Alimony Modification is Warranted

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

In New Jersey, an individual who seeks to modify his or her alimony obligation based on changed circumstances must establish that such changes are permanent. In an Appellate Division case, a couple divorced in 2007. At the time, the terms of the couple’s property settlement agreement (“PSA”) were incorporated into their dual judgment of divorce. As part of the PSA, the husband agreed to pay his former wife $2,500 per month in permanent alimony.

In January 2013, the man stopped working for his towing business due to health reasons. Despite this, he maintained a 51 percent share in the company. A few months later, the former husband sought to reduce or terminate his alimony obligation. According to the man, his changed circumstances merited such a change.

March 4, 2015

Court Holds New Jersey Alimony Payments Should Have Terminated on the Date Support Recipient Began Cohabiting With New Partner

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

When an alimony recipient begins living with a new partner, he or she must demonstrate that a continuing financial need exists in order to continue receiving spousal support. In an unpublished opinion, a couple divorced after about 14 years of marriage. Their June 2005 judgment of divorce incorporated a matrimonial settlement agreement (“MSA”) that required the husband to pay his former wife limited-duration (a/k/a “term”) alimony until August 2013. The MSA also stated the alimony award would be subject to modification or termination if the former wife began cohabiting with a new partner.

In 2012, the former husband filed a motion to terminate alimony payments after learning his former wife’s boyfriend began residing with her. The family court denied the man’s motion because he failed to establish that his former wife received a financial benefit from her new living arrangement. A few months later, the former wife moved into a home that was owned by her boyfriend. In April 2013, the former husband filed another motion to terminate his alimony obligations as of the date their cohabitation began or the date of his motion.

February 21, 2015

Establishing a ‘Change of Circumstances’ in New Jersey for Modifying Custody in a Multi-National Situation

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

A mother’s extreme difficulty in obtaining international travel documents to allow her children to visit their father at his home in Brazil did not warrant changing the parents’ custody arrangement from joint to sole custody, according to a recent Appellate Division ruling. While the family’s travel complexities were a new development, they did not rise to the level of a “substantial change in circumstances,” as needed to modify an existing child custody arrangement. As this case highlights, courts, in the interest of stability for the children, require significant showings in order to change custody arrangements.

The custody dispute involved two former spouses, Paulo and Sandra Costa, who divorced in 2006 after 12 years of marriage. At the time of the divorce, with both of the Costas living in New Jersey, they agreed to joint custody of their two children, who were six and nine. Three years later, though, the father relocated to a small town near Sao Paolo, Brazil.

February 19, 2015

Negotiated Property Settlement Agreements (a “PSA” or “MSA”) Can be Tough to Change in New Jersey

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

A New Jersey appellate court has stated a former couple’s equitable distribution of marital assets may not be revisited absent extraordinary circumstances. In an unpublished opinion, a New Jersey couple divorced in 2002 after more than 30 years of marriage. At the time, a mutually agreed upon property settlement agreement (“PSA”) was incorporated into the court’s final judgment of divorce. The PSA required the husband to pay his former wife “limited duration alimony” on a monthly basis until June 2023. The PSA also included a handwritten note that stated alimony payments would terminate if the wife remarried or either party passed away.

In addition to the alimony payment provision, the PSA divided the former couple’s assets equitably between them. In exchange for maintaining ownership of a memorabilia collection and the full vested interest in his pension, the husband agreed to pay his former wife a second monthly payment that was identical to the alimony schedule in both amount and duration, except that the payments were not scheduled to cease upon the death of either party. The wife lived with her boyfriend at the time of the former couple’s divorce.

February 3, 2015

Husband’s Reduced Salary Due to Attempt to Save Failing Business Allowed Alimony Modification by New Jersey Family Court Judge

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

An Appellate Division case from last year (June 2014) offers some clarity regarding when an alimony payor spouse’s financial setbacks are involuntary as opposed to voluntary or permanent as opposed to temporary. In this particular case, the husband whose reduced salary for more than three years was the result of his efforts to save his failing business was entitled to seek a reduction in his alimony payments. Since this decision occurred in June of last year, New Jersey’s sweeping alimony reform statute was enacted when Governor Christie signed a bill on September 10,2014 that addressed many aspects of alimony, giving guidance to the family bench and bar with respect to such issues as the type of alimony that may be appropriate, as well as the duration of any such alimony. The new legislation also set forth specific factors which a judge must now consider (after September 10, 2014) in deciding a modification application of a payor’s support as occurred in this case.

Michael and Tracy D’Alessandro married in 1985 and separated 22 years later. During the marriage, they had two children. When the couple completed their property settlement agreement in 2009, the husband was a one-half owner of a business, which was valued at the time at $1.25 million, and was receiving a $240,000 annual salary. The wife worked in a school cafeteria and made $15,000 per year.

Continue reading

January 14, 2015

New Jersey Wife’s Improved Income Still Not Enough to Warrant Termination of Alimony

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

A husband’s attempt to bring an end to his alimony payments did yield a reduced obligation, but not the complete cessation he sought. It also came at a price after the Appellate Division upheld not only the continuation of alimony but also a trial court award requiring the husband to pay $15,000 of the wife’s attorneys’ fees that she spent defending against his efforts to terminate alimony.

When Robert Clauss married his wife Linda in 1988, she was a ballet dancer who had no college education. When the couple divorced two decades later, the wife was unemployed with no income. The couple reached an agreement on spousal support that called for imputing an income of $30,000 per year to the wife. However, by 2012, the wife had earned her license as a registered nurse and was making $66,000 per year.

January 8, 2015

Ex-Husband’s Payments Maintaining House Constituted a ‘Form of Spousal Support’

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

Sometimes, a divorcing couple completes their property settlement agreement anticipating one future, only to have a different one unfold after they finalize their divorce. A couple encountering such a situation ultimately required a trial court and the Appellate Division to resolve their alimony dispute. The court decided that nothing in the agreement gave the wife grounds for extending the end date of her receiving alimony, even though the “trigger” event for the start of her alimony did not occur for a period of years, instead of months.

When Stephen Tully and Ann Buscher divorced back in early 2007, their case included a property settlement agreement that called for the husband to pay the wife alimony starting from the time they sold the marital home and running until the end of 2016. The couple, however, ultimately did not vacate the house or list it for sale right away. The wife moved out in 2011, and the husband followed the next year. The house was listed for sale in September 2012.

January 6, 2015

Husband Entitled to Alimony Credit for Post-Marital Credit for Efforts that Enhanced Pension

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

Just because a retired school administrator had the financial ability to keep paying alimony did not necessarily mean that he should be paying alimony, according to a recent ruling by the Appellate Division. The appeals court revived the husband’s alimony termination request because the lower court failed to consider the wife’s improved lifestyle and failed to account for the fact that the husband was making income payments to the wife through his pension.

The case involved the marriage of Michael Krupinski and his wife, Kathleen. The couple separated in 1988 after 20 years of marriage. At that time, the couple worked out a marital settlement agreement that addressed all issues, including child support, alimony, and equitable distribution of the couple’s marital property. The settlement agreement called for the husband to pay the wife one-third of his pension benefits once he started drawing his pension.

December 29, 2014

Multi-state Divorce Battle Ends When FL, MT Courts Order Husband to Argue Case in New Jersey

by Mark Goldstein, Esq.

A long-running battle involving a couple who divorced in New Jersey likely ended recently as courts in Florida and Montana wrapped up cases there involving issues related to the couple’s divorce. The rulings forced the husband to return to New Jersey to litigate his claims that the wife mismanaged a trust that the New Jersey court had created as part of the divorce, even though he had moved to Montana.

When Edwin Jonas III and his wife, Linda Jones, divorced, they did so in New Jersey. As part of that court order, the judge determined that the husband owed certain sums in alimony and child support. The court also ordered that several pieces of property that the husband owned be placed into a trust, giving the wife the authority both to sell items in the trust and, if the husband did not pay the alimony and child support amounts, to satisfy those obligations through the proceeds of the sale of the trust assets.