New Jersey Divorce Lawyers Blog

If you’ve been ordered to pay alimony, the law creates a series of hurdles you must clear before a court can modify your alimony payments to a lower amount. One recent case highlights just how difficult it sometimes can be to meet these requirements and obtain relief. In the case of Lax v. Lax, the Appellate Division upheld a trial court’s refusal to lower the former husband’s alimony, even though his income was less than half the amount used to calculate his payments.

The ruling resolved a lengthy battle within the divorce of David and Frances Lax, who were married from 1986 to 2008. When the couple originally divorced, the husband agreed to pay the wife $7,000 per month in permanent alimony. Three years later, the husband went back to court, asking for a reduction in his alimony obligation. In the intervening three years, the husband had suffered a severe financial reversal, leading him to file both personal and business bankruptcies.

Continue reading

An “ANTI-LEPIS” clause in a parties divorce settlement agreement was recently held to be valid and enforceable.

In a recent New Jersey appellate court decision,  a special type of clause that severely limits a person’s ability to later modify certain divorce agreements was, under the specific facts and circumstances in that case, held to be valid. This case involved a litigant who signed such an agreement but still sought a modification. A divorce agreement, commonly known and referred to as a “property settlement agreement” (a “PSA”) or a “marital settlement agreement” (an “MSA”)  can affect your finances and your rights for years after it is signed, so you should always discuss your case with a qualified New Jersey family law attorney.

J.H. and R.J.H. were married in 1998 and divorced in 2012. The wife (J.H.) had graduated high school but never worked during the marriage. The couple had three children together, and disagreements about custody and support created a contentious divorce process. The husband (R.J.H.) filed several Domestic Violence complaints  against his wife (J.H.), eventually resulting in a final restraining order (FRO) against her. When the divorce was settled, R.J.H. obtained primary custody of the kids.

The couple entered into a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA). R.J.H. would pay alimony to J.H., and that alimony would decrease over time until it would eventually end entirely. This appears to have been done in order to give J.H. a chance to transition into the workplace. Since R.J.H. was raising the three children on his own, J.H. would pay child support payments and contribute to the children’s needs. Since J.H. did not have a job at the time, the alimony from R.J.H. and the child support from J.H. were calculated using an imputed income of $15,600 per year for J.H. Continue reading

Obtaining a reduction in your alimony obligation can be difficult. The law requires clear proof that you’ve suffered a sizable enough non-temporary reduction in your income to warrant the reduction or elimination of alimony. The courts refer to this as a “substantial change in circumstance.” New Jersey court rules also require you to file the right paperwork (an application, known as a “Notice of Motion”) in order for the judge even to consider your evidence. One wife’s failure to meet the various requirements led the Appellate Division to uphold a trial judge’s decision denying her motion for an alimony modification.

The case of Bonnie Clark and Anthony Pomponio involved a couple who not only shared a marriage but also ownership of a business, New Jersey Diamond Wheel. When their 19-year marriage fell apart in 2001, the wife filed for divorce. After a lengthy legal process, the trial court gave the wife ownership of the business but ordered her to pay the husband $35,000 in alimony per year. A few months later, the judge dropped the alimony amount to $20,000 per year.

Continue reading