New Jersey Info
New Jersey Divorce Start Your Divorce Find Professionals New Jersey Articles Divorce Facts Divorce Grounds Residency Divorce Laws Mediation/Counseling Divorce Process Legal Separation Annulments Property Division Alimony Child Custody Child Support Divorce Forms Process Service Grandparent Rights Forum New Jersey Products Divorce by County
New Jersey Articles
Agreements Attorney Relationship Custody & Visitation Child Support Collaborative Law Counseling Divorce/General Domestic Abuse Domestic Partnership Financial Planning Foreign Divorce Mediation Parenting Property Division Spousal Support
Reducing Alimony Based Upon Loss of Employment or Reduced Earnings
I have recently lost my job making a six-figure job on Wall Street..
I am now working as a sales rep for a local New Jersey company, and I now only earn $60,000 per year. What are my chances to reduce my $300 per week alimony award if I file a motion to reduce alimony?
The family court will carefully scrutinize your application to reduce or modify alimony based upon your reduced earnings. The reason for this is that merely because a payor has suffered a setback in their economic circumstances does not necessarily equate to a legitimate Lepis change of circumstances. However, if you have legitimately lost your job in good faith then you have a "fighting" chance to obtain relief. In my experience many judges are only granting a reduction of alimony on a temporary basis. Many judges will reduce for a six month to one year period. Moreover, many judges will insert into any order that reduces alimony that the issue of alimony shall be reviewed upon application by the payee spouse after a six- month to one year period.
What are some recent caselaw that addresses motion to reduce alimony based on the payor's reduced earnings?
Kuron v. Hamilton, 331 N.J. Super 561 (App. Div. 2000). Here, the defendant who was a former attorney was disbarred for stealing his client's money. He was then sent to jail for nine years. While he was in jail, he filed a motion to reduce his alimony. The family court judge denied this motion. Thereafter, he appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his alimony. The grounds on appeal was that; a) his loss of his law license with his loss of income were sufficiently changed circumstances to allow the reduction of his alimony; b) because his jail term has left him with no source of income adequate to meet his alimony payments, he was entitled to a suspension of his alimony payments without the accrual of arrears while he was in jail.
The wife argued that; 1) because the defendant's disbarment and imprisonment resulted from voluntary acts, the are inadequate bases for reducing or suspending alimony and 2) the trial court erred in its determining that the defendant lacked the then current ability to discharge those obligations.
On appeal, the court revered the trial court's denial of the motion to reduce alimony. The Kuron court further held that:
It may seem counter-intuitive to permit a support obligor to avoid his or her payment responsibility, even partially or temporarily, based upon the consequences of his or her voluntary acts. However, the process of assessing and enforcing family obligation is not an exercise in intuitional rather, it calls for an evaluation and application of all the equitable considerations that emanate from the parties' relationships, understandings and circumstances at every significant junction. Id. at 576.
Miller v. Miller, 160, N.J. 408 (1999). Here, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's determination that the payor spouse had demonstrated a significant change of circumstance after he lost his job at Merrill Lynch.
Storey v. Storey, 373 N.J. Super. 464 (App. Div. 2004). Here, the Appellate Division held that in or order to obtain a reduction of alimony based on current earnings, a payor who selects a new, less lucrative career must establish that the benefits he or she derives from the career change substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the supported spouse. Absent that showing, the judge should deny the motion, and impute income based on prior earnings. However, the payor can still try to prove that his capacity to earn is diminished. Thereafter, the judge should then try to impute earnings consistent with the obligor's capacity to earn in light of this background and experience. The payor always has the burden of proof.
New Jersey is an equitable distribution state, meaning that the division of property in a divorce is to be done fairly, not necessarily equally. The court can take into consideration any factor it deems relevant when dividing property, but it must consider certain factors, such as how long the couple was married and the age and health of both spouses, the income or property brought to the marriage by each spouse, the standard of living that was achieved during the marriage, and the extent to which one spouse may have deferred career goals, among others.
Easily Connect With a Lawyer or Mediator
Have Divorce Professionals from Your Area Contact You!
|Women's Rights Manual For Divorce
Cover Price: $
Your Price: $29.95
You Save: $26.00
"The Absolute Best Investment in Your Divorce"
|Men's Rights Manual For Divorce
Cover Price: $
Your Price: $29.95
You Save: $26.00
"Uncover Your Options and Unleash Solutions"
© 1996 - 2020 Divorce Source, Inc. All Rights Reserved.