Child Support Modification Was Intended to Benefit Defendant

Ianniello v. Pizzo involved a motion to modify child support following a high-net worth divorce. Pizzo, remarried with another child from the second marriage, sought to increase Ianniello’s monthly child support payment to her from $10,000 to $75,000 per month when Plaintiff’s income increased. Pizzo and Ianniello were married in 2000. Two sons were born of the marriage in 2004 and 2008. In April 2011, the parties divorced with a marital settlement agreement providing for a $5.5 million equitable distribution to Pizzo from Ianniello’s stock options, $10,000 per month for six years in limited durational alimony and an additional $10,000 per month in child support. Defendant is a homemaker with no employment outside of the home. Plaintiff, also remarried, is an executive in a large corporation wherein his annual income fluctuates between $14 and $31 million annually plus benefits. Plaintiff argued that the $10,000 in monthly child support more than provided for the needs of the children and that the Defendant’s request was made just as her alimony was about to end in an effort to improve her own lifestyle, not that of the children as the expenses of a 10 and 13 year old did not amount to $900,000 annually. The court ordered Defendant to file a budget as per Walton v. Wisgil, 248 N.J. Super. 642 (App. Div. 1991). The court found Defendant’s budget to be more of a wish-list of extravagances which would mainly benefit the Defendant. Pursuant to the factors of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a), the court noted that the child support guidelines called for $508 each week in child support which was stepped up substantially already to account for the parties’ incomes and the children want for nothing. Pursuant to the child support guidelines, if the combined net income of the parents is greater than $187,200 per annum, the court shall supplement child support with a discretionary amount based on the actual family income and the factors of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. The children vacation four times annually with their families, attend sports camps, enjoy country club memberships and live in luxurious residences. Additionally, the Plaintiff agreed to pay for the children's private school costs, college expenses and extracurricular activities. The court denied the Defendant’s request to modify child support and the N.J. Appellate Division affirmed. For more information on high net worth divorce, alimony, child support, or other family law matters, visit DarlingFirm.com or call 973-584-6200 to schedule a consultation and protect your rights. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

As Man's Salary Plummets, Alimony Reduction is Awarded

William Bischoff sought to reduce his alimony obligation and terminate his obligation to maintain a life insurance policy for the benefit of his ex-wife, Diane Bischoff, or, in the alternative, to reduce the amount of insurance he was required to maintain. The result of the post-judgment motion was that Bischoff’s alimony obligation was reduced based on significantly changed financial circumstances, although the life insurance policy was kept in place in light of the judge’s finding that it was part of equitable distribution, rather than alimony, and that a change in William Bischoff’s circumstances did not justify a modification of equitable distribution decided long ago. However, Diane Bischoff was required to contribute more to the policy’s premium. In 2006, when the parties divorced, William Bischoff was making approximately $900,000 per year and their Property Settlement Agreement called for alimony in the amount of $153,900 on the first $600,000 of his earnings and one-third of the next $650,000. In 2009 a woman with whom William Bischoff had become romantically involved was arrested for insider trading and William Bischoff was later terminated from his employment. In 2012, the parties consented to a post-judgment modification of the alimony obligation to $2,500 per month with Plaintiff’s income imputed at $125,000 annually and Defendant’s at $20,000 annually. When Plaintiff’s income continued to fall, the within motion for reduction in alimony and termination of insurance was filed. In Bischoff v. Bischoff, the N.J. Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the court below on appeal finding no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge and lack of merit in Plaintiff’s claims on appeal. In light of recent changes in the way alimony is determined, 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 based upon a significant reduction in your income 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 DarlingFirm.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.

Alimony Modification Denied For Lack Of Changed Circumstances

In the case of Monico v. Monico, the Plaintiff appealed from a 2014 Family Court Order that denied his Motion to modify his alimony obligation based upon changed circumstances. The New Jersey Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Family Court. Each "and every motion to modify an alimony obligation 'rests upon its own particular footing'" and the Appellate Court "must give due recognition to the wide discretion" that is given to trial judges who adjudicate these matters. Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17, 21 (App. Div. 2006); Martindell v. Martindell, 21 N.J. 341, 355 (1956). Ultimately, this standard conveys that a trial judge's findings in regard to alimony should not be vacated unless the court clearly abused its discretion, failed to consider all of the controlling legal principles, made mistaken findings, or reached a conclusion that could not reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence. Gnall v. Gnall, 432 N.J. Super. 129, 148 (App. Div. 2013). Court Orders concerning alimony "may be revised and altered by the court from time to time as circumstances may require." N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. Therefore, alimony obligations are "always subject to review and modification on a showing of 'changed circumstances.'" Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 146 (1980). The law regarding what constitutes a change of circumstances is well established. Examples of changed circumstances that may warrant support modifications include an increase or decrease in the paying spouse's income or disability or illness which arises after the divorce judgment is issued. In this case, the Plaintiff argued that the Family Court judge who denied his request to modify his alimony amount was mistaken in considering his 2012 tax return instead of his projected earnings for 2013, when determining if a change in circumstances had existed. The judge noted how the Plaintiff's income had increased since signing his property settlement agreement (the parties were divorced in 2007) based upon multiple sources of income. According to the Appellate Division, as the Plaintiff's 2013 financial information from his primary business, a towing company that he owned, had not been finalized it discerned no reason to disturb the Family Court's ruling to deny the Plaintiff's request based upon insufficient evidence of changed financial circumstances. 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 anticipate that you may want 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.

Court Denies Man's Request To Lower Alimony For Temporary Change in Circumstances

In the recent Appellate Division case, Lax v. Lax, a post-judgment matrimonial matter, the Plaintiff, David Lax, appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order that denied his Motion to reduce his alimony obligation. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the lower court. The parties in this case were married in 1986 and obtained a legal divorce in 2008. Their final divorce judgment incorporated a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) in which the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant permanent alimony in the amount of $7,000 per month. In 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with the court to modify his spousal support obligation. A series of Cross-Motions followed that resulted in a plenary hearing in which the Plaintiff sought to prove changed circumstances based upon a change in his financial situation and the Defendant's co-habitation with another person. The judge determined that no co-habitation existed but that the Plaintiff had proven a change in circumstances warranting a modification of his obligation. Subsequently, the Plaintiff's alimony obligation was reduced to $2,000 a month. Following this ruling, the Defendant filed a Motion for reconsideration and the Plaintiff once again filed for another downward modification of his obligation. This time the court denied his request for another modification and he appealed. The Appellate Court held that its review of the Family Court's decision is limited stating that "Whether an alimony obligation should be modified based upon a claim of changed circumstances rests within a Family Part judge's sound discretion." Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17, 21 (App. Div. 2006). Further, it stated that "Courts have consistently rejected requests for modification based on circumstances which are only temporary." Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 145-46 (1980). In this case, the Plaintiff filed his second Motion for another downward modification of his spousal support obligation only three (3) months after the previous order modifying his obligation was issued. The Family Court properly found that there was no evidence in the record to prove that the Plaintiff's financial situation was anything other than temporary. The Appellate Division agreed with the decision of the Family Court and for the aforementioned reasons affirmed the lower court's denial of the Plaintiff's request. If you anticipate that you may want 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, divorce, child support, equitable distribution, 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.

Sole Custody After Child Endangerment Allegations?

In the recent NJ Appellate Division case, Hernandez v. Fermin, the Plaintiff sought sole custody of the parties' daughter alleging violations of his rights following accusations by the Defendant that he endangered their daughter's safety. The Plaintiff appealed from a 2012 Family Court Order that upheld a previous parenting time and custody order. In this case, the Plaintiff and Defendant started dating around 2008, and although the parties never married, they had a daughter together who was born in 2009. One month after, Sara, their daughter, was born they dissolved their relationship and the Defendant assumed custody of her. In 2010, the Defendant formally filed a Complaint for custody of Sara and the Family Court granted her temporary custody and a Parenting Time Order. The court also granted the Defendant temporary legal and residential custody and assigned a parenting time schedule for the Plaintiff. Subsequently, the parties went to mediation where they agreed to joint legal custody and signed a Consent Order granting the Defendant residential custody of their daughter and continuing the existing parenting time schedule. In 2012, the Plaintiff filed another Motion with the court arguing that the Defendant engaged in multiple parenting time violations and seeking sole legal custody over Sara. The Plaintiff's concerns were based upon the safety of Sara, who had recently suffered second or third degree burns while in the Defendant's custody. The Plaintiff also asserted that when Sara was younger she noticed that she had an unexplained cut on her leg while in the Defendant's care and that the Defendant had failed to care for a dental cavity that Sara had. The Family Court judge denied the Motion, holding that in order to determine the issue of sole custody of a child, he would need to hear the testimony from professionals like psychologists or other doctors regarding either parents' fitness. The judge held that in order to modify a custody arrangement "you've got to prove a substantial change of circumstances. The fact that the [child] got injured is not in or itself grounds to take a child away . . ." Therefore, the Family Court found that the Plaintiff's arguments were insufficient to warrant a change in custody. The Plaintiff then appealed from this decision. The NJ Appellate Court held that the resolution of a request to change custody requires the court to consider the custodial parent's fitness and the presence of a changed circumstance. Sheehan v. Sheehan, 51 N.J. Super. 276, 295 (App. Div. 1958); N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. Z.P.R., 351 N.J. Super. 427, 434 (App. Div. 2002). Following these principals, the Appellate Court found no error in the Family Court's determinations and held that the Plaintiff's assertions were without merit and affirmed the decision of the lower court. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Child custody cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for to establish custody or for a post-judgment modification of your current child custody arrangement it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, post-judgment modification, parenting time, divorce, child support, 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 With Lifetime Alimony Gets Jail Time

A New Jersey man is so far behind in his lifetime alimony payments that he routinely gets sentenced to jail time for not paying his ex-wife her alimony and his child support payments. The Bergen county man worked as a portfolio manager at a major investment group and at one time made as much as $1 million a year. He and his ex-wife divorced after 17 years of marriage and was ordered by a New Jersey court to pay alimony and child support. As of August, 2013, the man has been sent to jail at least eight times in the span of two years for missing his court-ordered alimony obligations. The reason he has been missing his alimony payments is because, like so many people throughout New Jersey, his salary and job security has been the victim of the unstable national economy. In order to keep up with his court-ordered alimony and child support payments he has exhausted his life savings. His court-ordered annual alimony and child support obligation total almost $100,000 a year. The man feels that the laws of the state of New Jersey with regard to lifetime alimony are completely unfair because if a payer’s life circumstances changes and he or she cannot continue to pay the amount of alimony that the court ordered, they can be jailed for contempt of court for missing payments – even if they are out of work and out of resources to make the payments. Although, New Jersey law does allow post judgment modification of alimony and child support in some cases where a party can show a significant “changed circumstance” that would necessitate court intervention, many law makers are pushing to change the archaic laws concerning lifetime alimony in New Jersey. Currently, there are two bills before the New Jersey Legislature focused on this goal. Getting the court to modify alimony and child support amounts could be difficult and require paying an attorney to carry out the process. If you need to petition the court to modify your alimony or child support payments you should seek out the advice and counsel of an attorney who has experience in his area of the law. For more information about alimony, child support or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com and NJCivilUnionLaw.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Child Support Obligations Upon Change of Custody

In the recent case of Wong, Jr. v. Wong, the Appellate Court, in its unpublished opinion, reversed the trial court's order obligating the Plaintiff-father to continue to pay child support to the Defendant-mother and denial of request for child support from Defendant-mother after the granting of a change of custody whereby the parties' son began living with the father. The trial court had ruled that a prior consent order between the parties whereby the Plaintiff-father waived his right to seek modification of his child support obligation for any reason and Defendant-mother waived her right to receive any further alimony prevented Plaintiff-father from seeking a subsequent termination of his child support obligation and a request for child support from Defendant-mother. The parties agreed to the terms in the consent order after plaintiff-father fell behind on his support payments due to a loss of employment. The Appellate Court cited to Lepis v. Lepis, 83 NJ 139 (1980) and the holding in Morris v. Morris, 263 N.J. Super. 237(App. Div. 1993) to support its finding that although a waiver to any future modification of support may be enforceable for specific limited reasons, the court can change an agreement if it finds equity requires it. It further found that the language of the parties' consent order does not indicate that when it was negotiated the parties considered the possibility of a transfer of custody which is a change of circumstances that warrants a look into the financial circumstances of the parties and a running of the child support guidelines worksheet. Therefore, it was appropriate to remand the matter to the trial court. Plaintiff-father did not challenge the denial of his application for child support from defendant-mother in his appeal but only the denial of his request to terminate his child support obligation. The Appellate Court held that on remand the trial court must consider the needs of the child, the parties' consent order, and the financial circumstances of the parties prior to determining whether or not Plaintiff-father should be permitted to waive child support from Defendant-mother. If you are owed or paying child support, have experienced a change of circumstances which may allow for a modification of child support, of if you have been served papers regarding a child support issue then you should consult with an experienced family law attorney to protect your rights. For more information about child support, child custody, divorce, dissolution or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

No Change in Custody in NJ Without a Hearing

In order to make a change in custody from the arrangement set forth under the terms of a Court Order or Property Settlement Agreement into which the parties freely and knowingly entered, the Court must hold a plenary hearing. A recent decision in the Essex County Superior Court, Family Part made a change in custody based solely on the recommendations of a court-appointed mediator. Originally, when plaintiff sought a change in custody, the parties agreed to retain a joint evaluator and enter into a consent order if they both agreed with the evaluator's recommendation. However, the parties and the court, further agreed that, if the decision of the evaluator was unacceptable to either party, that party could move for a hearing before the Court to determine whether the evaluator's recommendation should be implemented. The New Jersey Appellate Court reversed the superior Court ruling and reaffirmed a prior ruling in the case of G.C. v. M.Y. (287 N.J. super. 363, 368 (App.Div. 1995)) by stating that "unless there are exigent circumstances, changes in custody are not to be ordered without a plenary hearing." The exigent circumstances set forth were "evidence of imminent harm or threatened harm to the well-being of the child, there is no justification…[to make] a custody decision on an emergent basis, without a plenary hearing." This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you or your children's other parent are seeking a modification of custody, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on custody, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership, alimony, child support or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

Incarceration For Willful Non-Payment of Child Support in NJ Requires Specific Findings of Fact

At times, failure to pay child support is intentional and other times it is unintentional. Judges may not make arbitrary decisions based upon their personal judgments as to the character of the non-paying individual. In the case in which such findings may lead to incarceration or invasion of the individual's rights from an order to wean and ankle bracelet for monitoring, this is even more so. When a court is making a finding regarding the ability of a child support obligor to pay, the judge is required to permit the obligor to testify on his or her own behalf and to present evidence in support of their inabilty to pay. Due to changed circumstances such as job loss, other court ordered obligations, failure of a business, disability, lack of work or other reasons for reduced income an obligor may be entitled to a reduction in child support and some flexibility regarding payment of arrears. A judge must set forth on the record specific finding of facts as to how they reached their decision in a matter. When an obligor's freedom and rights are at stake, the requirement of clear reasons from an unbiased point of view is even more necessary. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are seeking, or subject to, enforcement or modification of child support in Family Court, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on child support, enforcement, modification, alimony, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership, custody or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

Modification of Alimony- What is Required in NJ?

A change in employment or earnings of a spouse, either the payor or the payee, is not necessarily enough for a modification of spousal support. The court requires a "prima facie showing of changed circumstances" to consider modification of support. Prima facie is latin for "at first sight" or "on its face." What this means if that the change must appear, to the court, to be significant and in need of further consideration at a hearing. The change in circumstances required for a modification of support is one that substantially impairs the ability of a spouse to support himself or herself. This means a long-term change, not simply a reduction in income during a slow period in a spouse's business cycle. The court also considers the earning capacity or potential earning power of the spouse, not simply whether they are using the ability or the power. This means if the court finds the spouse can earn more, the court will impute to the spouse the income the court believes they can make. A long-term change in the economy, a certain industry leaving the area or a long-term disability are examples of reasons the court will consider modification of alimony. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are seeking a modification of support or someone is seeking to modify a support order imposed on you, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on alimony, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership, custody, child support or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.