Appeal Of Default Divorce By Pro Se Party Unsuccessful

In Dippel v. Dippel, the Plaintiff appealed from a 2013 Final Divorce Judgment that was entered by default on the Defendant's Counterclaim because the Plaintiff failed to comply with the Rules of the Court. The Plaintiff instituted divorce proceedings in 2010 and in 2012 the court dismissed his pleadings without prejudice for failure to comply with discovery requests. In 2012, the court denied the Plaintiff's application to vacate the default judgment and allow him additional time to provide discovery. Later that year, the Plaintiff once again made an application to vacate his divorce judgment, which was denied. The court had advised the Defendant that she could proceed with default proceedings based upon her Counterclaim because the Plaintiff did not comply with discovery. A trial was held in 2013, at which, the trial judge thoroughly placed on the record the history of the Plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery. The court then proceeded to adjudicate custody, parenting time, alimony, and child support. The court did not address equitable distribution, determining that any proceeds from the sale of assets shall be held in escrow. A Final Divorce Judgment was issued on June 13, 2013. The Plaintiff filed a pro se brief with the Appellate Court which did not comply with the Rules of the Court. N.J. Court Rule 2:5-4; N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 278, 914 A.2d 1265 (2007). Further, the contents of the Plaintiff's brief did not comply with N.J. Court Rule 2:6-2. In essence, the Plaintiff asked the Appellate Court to review the entire divorce proceedings in totem. According to the Appellate Division, the Defendant's request mischaracterizes its role in the proceedings, as it is to give considerable discretionary decision to the Family Court. Donnelly v. Donnelly, 405 N.J. Super. 117, 127, 963 A.2d 855 (App. Div. 2009). When a Family Part judge has made findings of fact after considering the testimony and documents the parties have presented during a non-jury trial, the judge's findings are generally "binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12, 713 A.2d 390 (1998). Further, "parties are required to make adequate legal argument." 700 Highway 33 LLC v. Pollio, 421N.J. Super. 231, 238, 23 A3d 446 (App. Div. 2011). Conclusory assertions that a judge committed error, devoid of reference to the judge's decision or the trial record, and further devoid of any attempt to apply the applicable precedent of the factual underpinnings of such conclusory assertions, do not satisfy the requirement. Therefore, the decision of the Family Court was affirmed. If you are considering and appeal of your final divorce judgment or you would like more information regarding divorce it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about divorce, uncontested divorce, equitable distribution, child support, alimony or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Man's Appeal To Terminate Alimony After He Retires Is Denied

In Baker v. Baker, the Defendant appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order that denied his Motion to terminate his alimony obligation. After review, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. The parties in this case were married in 1975 and obtained their divorce in 1998. Their final divorce judgment incorporated a property settlement agreement (PSA) in which the Defendant agreed to pay $10,000 a month in permanent alimony to the Plaintiff. In 2005, the Defendant's job was terminated and at the time he was fired he was earning $900,000 per year. Shortly thereafter, the Defendant got another job as the CEO of a smaller company where he expected to receive a salary of $120,000 with the potential for bonuses that would be commensurate with his previous job. However, the Defendant did not receive a salary or bonuses at this new position as the company was in dire financial straits. In 2008, the Defendant filed a Motion for a reduction in his alimony obligation. The Family Court denied his application. The Defendant appealed and while his appeal was pending he filed two additional Motions for interim relief, which the court also denied. At the time, the Plaintiff voluntarily agreed to accept a decrease to $8,000 a month in her alimony award. The Family Court held a plenary hearing on the issue in 2010 at the conclusion of which the Defendant's alimony was temporarily reduced to $6,666 a month. The Defendant appealed this decision. In 2011, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. In 2012, the Defendant resigned from the company as it was allegedly about to close its doors and he immediately filed a Motion to terminate his alimony obligation. A plenary hearing was held at which both parties testified about their financial troubles and difficulties securing appropriate work. At the conclusion of the hearing the court denied the Defendant's request. According to the court, there had been "no substantial change in circumstances since the last motion on the [d]efendant's side of the equation" and that termination of alimony was not warranted because the Defendant voluntarily retired from his position. Moreover, when employed as his last company, the Defendant had not acted in good faith as he voluntarily went several years without receiving any income while at the same time loaning the company $138,000. Finally, the court found that instead of seeking a position that would enable him to pay alimony, the Defendant was only "interested in high paying jobs. . . ." Therefore, the court imputed $120,000 a year in income to him which was similar to what he could earn as the base salary at his previous job. The court also noted that the Defendant earned about $170,000 a year in unearned income. In the end, the court ordered the Defendant to pay $5,166 per month in alimony. He appealed. According to the Appellate Division, alimony "may be revised and altered by the court from time to time as circumstances may require." N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. In order to make such a modification a party must show "changed circumstances." Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 146 (1980); Weishaus v. Weishaus, 180 N.J. 131, 140-41 (2004). The ". . . party seeking modification has the burden of showing such 'changed circumstances' as would warrant relief from the support or maintenance provisions involved." Martindell v. Martindell, 21 N.J. 341, 353 (1956). There is no " . . . bright line rule by which to measure when a changed circumstance has endured long enough to warrant a modification of a support obligation, instead, such matters turn on the discretionary determinations of Family Part judges, based upon their experience." Donnelly v. Donnelly, 405 N.J. Super. 117, 128 (App. Div. 2009); Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17, 23 (App. Div. 2006). Retirement may constitute a change in circumstances warranting a modification or elimination of alimony. Silvan v.Sylvan, 267 N.J. Super. 578, 581 (App. Div. 1993); Deegan v. Deegan, 254 N.J. Super. 350, 358-59 (App. Div. 1992). The analysis turns to whether or not the retirement was voluntary or involuntary. If the change in involuntary, all that is required of the analysis is the parties' financial circumstances. If the change was voluntary the court must consider a list of factors such as whether or not the retirement was made in good faith. In this case, the Appellate Division found that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in finding no changed circumstances and affirmed the decision of the lower court. Being that the laws governing alimony have recently been changed, it is very important that you seek out the advice of an attorney to protect your rights an entitlements. If you think that it may be beneficial for you to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your alimony obligation or for any other reason it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about alimony, divorce, post-judgment modification, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Man's End-Of-Life Situation Did Not Give Rise To Alimony Termination

Rizzolo v. Jones is a New Jersey Appellate Division case in which the Plaintiff appealed from a Family Court denial of his post-judgment Motion to modify or terminate his alimony obligation to the Defendant due to his severely ill health. The Appellate Court reversed the decision of the Family Court. Whether or not an alimony award can be modified is "based upon a claim of changed circumstances . . . . " Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17, 21 (App. Div. 2006). Such determinations will not be overturned "unless the court abused its discretion, failed to consider controlling legal principles or made findings inconsistent with or unsupported by competent evidence." Storey v. Storey, 373 N.J. Super. 464, 479 (App. Div. 2004). The parties in this case were married in 1982, were separated in 1989, and divorced in 2006. The Plaintiff was 58 years old and the Defendant was 38 years old when they got married. The judge who heard their divorce trial concluded that the Plaintiff, who was "in remarkably good health" at 84, had worked as an attorney for 50 years and was entitled to retire. Although the parties had not lived together for many years at the time of their divorce, the Plaintiff had continued to support the Defendant. The judge concluded that based upon this fact that the parties had a long term marriage and the Defendant was entitled to permanent alimony. The judge awarded the Defendant $300 a week in alimony. The Plaintiff was 89 years old and in ill health when he submitted a Motion to the court to terminate his alimony obligation. He was suffering from prostate cancer, renal failure, and a bone infection at the time. The Family Court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of changed circumstances and ordered discovery. Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408, 420 (1999). Relying on Miller, Donnelly v. Donnelly, 405 N.J. Super 117, 130-31 (App. Div. 2009), and Aronson v. Aronson, 245 N.J. Super. 354, 361 (App. Div. 1991), all which stand for the proposition that a supporting spouse cannot choose to remain in a position of diminished earning capacity and ignore the obligations of support to one's family, the court found that the Plaintiff did not do enough to meet his alimony obligation because he was a veteran entitled to veteran's benefits and he could have entered himself into a VA facility to address his health needs instead of paying for a relative to care for him at home. The Plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Court agreed with the Plaintiff's argument that no evidence was presented by the Defendant that a bed was ready and available at the VA facility or that the quality of care at the facility compared in any way to the care he was already receiving. The court held that it was not aware of any published cases suggesting that the Plaintiff should have prepared to justify his choice to remain at home receiving end-of-life care instead of entering into a VA facility so that he could maintain his alimony obligation. Further, the analysis in the Miller, Donnelly, and Aronson cases do not deal with end-of-life care questions as was pivotal in this case. Therefore, the decision to modify alimony turns on what is equitable and fair upon consideration of all circumstances of both parties. Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 158 (1980). Therefore, the court reversed the decision of the Family Court. This being the case, the court held that the Family Court, on remand, may conclude that it is equitable to require the Plaintiff to enter a VA facility against his will to ensure that he meets his alimony obligation until his death. Deegan v. Deegan, 254 N.J. Super. 350, 355 (App. Div. 1992). Being that the laws governing the issues involving alimony have recently been changed, it is very important that you seek out the advice of an attorney to protect your rights an entitlements. If you think that it may be beneficial for you to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your alimony obligation it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about alimony, child support, post-judgment modification , or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Alimony Terminates On Date Cohabitation Begins Absent Proof Of Delay In Economic Benefit

Schlumpf v. Schlumpf, is a New Jersey Appellate Division case in which the Defendant appealed from two (2) post-judgment Family Court Orders filed in 2013 regarding his alimony obligation following the Plaintiff's admitted cohabitation with her significant other. The Defendant claims that the date terminating his alimony obligation should be adjusted by four (4) months (earlier), to when the Plaintiff admitted her cohabitation. The Plaintiff argued that when she began cohabitating with her significant other she did not, at first, receive an economic benefit from the arrangement and therefore the Order terminating the Defendant's obligation at a certain date should not be modified. According to the Appellate Division, its review of the termination of alimony was "limited to whether the court made findings inconsistent with the evidence or unsupported by the record, or erred as a matter of law." Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. Super. 552, 572 (App. Div. 2013). A Motion requesting the modification of an "alimony obligation 'rests upon its own particular footing and the appellate court must give due recognition to the wide discretion which our law rightly affords to the trial judges who deal with these matters." Donnelly v. Donnelly, 405 N.J. Super. 117, 127 (App. Div. 2009). Typically, alimony can be altered based upon a changed circumstance which rests with the discretion of a Family Court Judge. Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17, 21 (App Div. 2006). A type of changed circumstance would be the cohabitation of a spouse. Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149 (1983). The parties in this case expressly acknowledged in their Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) that such an event would constitute a changed circumstance which would warrant the modification of the Defendant's alimony obligation. Beyond cohabitation, there must be proof that a cohabitating spouse is receiving some form of economic benefit from the cohabitation. Reese, supra, 430 N.J. Super. at 557-8, 576. A spouse's proof of cohabitation establishes a rebuttable presumption of changed circumstances that once established shifts the burden of proof to the dependant spouse. Ozolins v. Ozolins, 308 N.J. Super. 243, 248 (App. Div. 1998). In this case, the Appellate Division found that there was no evidence to support the Family Court judge's selection of a particular date for the termination of the Defendant's alimony based only on the Plaintiff's suggested date. A review of the record, indicated to the Appellate Court that the Plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption that she began to get an economic benefit from cohabitating when she moved into her boyfriend's house. Therefore, the court concluded that it was an abuse of the court's discretion to fix the termination date at the date agreed to by the Plaintiff instead of terminating alimony when the Plaintiff and her children relocated to the residence of her boyfriend. The laws governing alimony have recently been changed, making it very important that you seek out the advice of an attorney to protect your rights an entitlements. If you are seeking post-judgment modification of your alimony obligation based upon your ex-spouse's cohabitation it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about alimony, child support, post-judgment modification , or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.