Cohabitation Excluded From Property Settlement Agreement Fails To End Alimony

Frick v. Frick was a post-judgment application to terminate alimony based on co-habitation. The parties divorced in 2009 with the court making no findings with regard to alimony, equitable distribution or other matters. The terms of the divorce were set forth within a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) which both parties testified they entered into freely and voluntarily. Beginning in 2013, Shari Frick began co-habitating with another man and Glen Frick sought termination of his 10-year alimony obligation. The New Jersey Superior Court judge hearing the case terminated alimony, with certain exceptions. The NJ Appellate Division reversed the decision of the trial court finding that co-habitation is a forseeable occurrence after divorce and the parties failed to include it as a reason to terminate alimony under their Agreement. In light of the fact that the parties included death and remarriage as events which would serve to terminate alimony, the NJ Appellate Division found that, had they intended it to be a trigger for termination of alimony, the parties would have included co-habitation in their PSA. When divorcing, by way of agreement or trial, it is critical that the agreement or judgment be as detailed as possible in order to avoid misunderstandings or misinterpretations. If you are seeking a reduction of alimony based on co-habitation of your former spouse, it is critical that you obtain an experienced divorce attorney to assist you with your matter. For more information about alimony termination, co-habitation, divorce, property settlement agreements or other family law matters visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Proving Cohabitation Without Access To Necessary Evidence

Using Facebook posts by his ex-wife’s significant other to support his claims, Steven Robitzski claimed cohabitation of his ex-wife with another as a reason for reduction in his alimony obligation under the 2014 revisions to the alimony statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. Robitzski sought additional discovery from the plaintiff with regard to her finances and the court held that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of cohabitation that would be required prior to their compelling discovery from Lorraine Robitzski. The property settlement agreement (PSA) which the parties agreed to at the time of their divorce contemplated alimony of $2,500 monthly from husband to wife and contemplated certain circumstances, including the wife’s future cohabitation, as a reason for termination of alimony. Cohabitation, as defined in Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149 (1983), and Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (1999), contemplates a marriage-like relationship including “stability, permanency and mutual interdependence.” The plaintiff denied that she cohabitated with her significant other claiming he spends approximately 100 nights per year at her residence and that they maintain separate finances and residences. The plaintiff provided the defendant with bank accounts showing she paid her own bills for 2013 and 2014 without deposits from unknown sources. The judge found the Facebook postings to be inadmissible and of limited probative value in any event. The judge did however order the significant other to provide certain certification with regard to his living arrangements and finances as well as ordering the plaintiff ex-wife to provide proof of her own expenses and how they are met. On appeal, in Robitzski v. Robitzski, there was consideration of Konzelman with regard to whether the cohabitation criteria existing at the time of the divorce or the amended criteria would apply. In 2014, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 was modified to reflect the following criteria for a court to use when assessing whether cohabitation exists: (1) Intertwined finances such as joint bank accounts and other joint holdings or liabilities; (2) Sharing or joint responsibilities for living expenses; (3) Recognition of the relationship in the couple's social and family circle; (4) Living together, the frequency of contact, the duration of the relationship, and other indicia of a mutually supportive intimate personal relationship; (5) Sharing household chores; (6) Whether the recipient of alimony has received an enforceable promise of support from another person within the meaning of subsection h. of [N.J.S.A.] 25:1-5; and (7) All other relevant evidence. Also to be considered is the duration of the relationship. The 2014 amendments include a provision indicating they are effective from 2014 and do not modify prior agreements or orders. The N.J. Appellate Division looked to Landers v. Landers, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2016) and Spangenberg v. Kolakowski, 442 N.J. Super. 529 (App. Div. 2015) with regard to whether the 2014 amendments would be applied retroactively. The Appellate Division determined that it no matter which version of the statue was applied, the defendant failed to make a prima facie case for cohabitation and opined that even if the trial judge had allowed the Facebook postings regarding vacations and events the parties enjoyed together, there would not be a prima facie showing of cohabitation. The decision of the trial court was affirmed. In light of changes to the laws governing alimony and cohabitation, it is critical 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 your ex-spouse's cohabitation with another person 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 is in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Alimony Not Terminated In Spite Of Cohabitation

In Coshland v. Coshland, the Defendant appealed from a Family Court Order that denied his Motion to terminate his alimony payments because he claimed that the Plaintiff was cohabitating with her boyfriend. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court finding that the Plaintiff's boyfriend did not cohabitate but was a frequent visitor who did not economically benefit the Plaintiff. Following a twenty-seven (27) year marriage that yielded two (2) children, the parties divorced in 2011 pursuant to a Property Settlement and Support Agreement (PSSA). The agreement directed that the Defendant would pay $230 a week in alimony but stated that the obligation would terminate if the Plaintiff were to begin "residing with an unrelated person, or vice versa, where [the Plaintiff] is receiving and economic benefit, for a period of not less than 30 consecutive days." After the divorce the Plaintiff moved to a townhouse that was recently vacated by two of the Plaintiff's friends, K.C. and her brother J.C. The townhouse was individually owned by K.C. After the Plaintiff moved in, J.C. began to spend two to five nights a week at the townhouse. The Plaintiff and J.C. "attempted" a romantic relationship but both claimed at the time of the hearing that the relationship was platonic. When the Defendant suspected the Plaintiff of cohabitating with J.C. he hired a private investigator to gather information about the relationship. Between March and April 2013, the investigator observed the Plaintiff and J.C. arriving home from work together (they both worked at Shop-Rite) and the Plaintiff visited the residence seventeen (17) times in that time frame. The Defendant filed a Motion to terminate his alimony. The Family Court Judge denied the Motion and scheduled a plenary hearing to take place. At the hearing, the judge heard testimony from the private investigator, a real-estate expert, and the Plaintiff. After hearing the testimony, the judge issued an oral opinion denying the Defendant's Motion to terminate alimony finding that J.C. did not live at the townhouse and that the Plaintiff was not receiving economic benefit from his visits. The Defendant appealed. According to the Appellate Division, alimony can be modified if a party demonstrates a significant financial change since the alimony was first awarded. Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. Super. 552, 572, 66 A.3d 157 (App. Div. 2013). One type of changed circumstance is cohabitation by a former spouse. Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149, 155, 456 A.2d 102 (1983). Cohabitation is typified by a showing of a relationship "shown to have stability, permanency, and mutual interdependence." Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185, 202, 729 A.2d 7 (1999). Therefore, a former spouse residing with a significant other is not, by itself, enough to terminate alimony, further, there must be additional proof that the cohabitating spouse received some form of economic benefit from the cohabitation or the supported cohabitant "supports or subsidizes the other under circumstances sufficient to entitle the supporting spouse to relief. Reese, supra, 430 N.J. Super. at 557-58, 576; Gayet, supra, 92 N.J. at 153-54. Proving cohabitation creates a rebuttable presumption of changed circumstances. Ozolins v. Ozolins, 308 N.J. Super. 243, 248, 705 A.2d 1230 (App. Div. 1998). Accordingly, the burden of proof which is ordinarily on the party seeking modification, shifts to the dependant spouse to prove the lack of economic benefit and continued need for support. Id. at 248-49. In this case, the Appellate Division found that apart from proving J.C.'s frequent overnight stays at the Plaintiff's residence, the Defendant failed to present any evidence in support of an intimate relationship or economic benefit. Therefore, the Family Court's denial of the Defendant's Motion was affirmed. Being that the laws governing the issues involving alimony and cohabitation 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 based upon your ex-spouse's cohabitation with another person 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 Suspended For 9 Months Based Upon Cohabitation

In Fringo v. Fringo, the Plaintiff appealed from a Family Court post-judgment Order issued in 2013 that suspended her entitlement to alimony for nine (9) months because of the Plaintiff's cohabitation with her significant other. In her appeal the Plaintiff argued that the Family Court erred because the Defendant failed to prove a prima facie case of cohabitation and even if he had rebutted the presumption. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the lower court. The parties were married in 1993 and divorced in 2011 pursuant to a final judgment of divorce and an incorporated marital settlement agreement (MSA). The MSA stated that the "...parties agree that cohabitation by wife shall constitute a substantial change in circumstance in accordance with NJ law." In 2013, the Defendant filed a Motion seeking the modification or termination of his alimony obligation because the Plaintiff was cohabitating with another person. The Defendant submitted with his Certification the Certification of a private investigator who prepared a report detailing that the Plaintiff's boyfriend began to live in her apartment in December of 2012. After hearing oral argument in 2013, a Family Court judge granted the Defendant's Motion for a modification of alimony based upon the Plaintiff's cohabitation relying on Ozolins v. Ozolins, 308 N.J. Super. 243 (App Div. 1998) and Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. Super. 552 (App. Div. 2013), and based upon the Plaintiff and her boyfriend's admission that he lived with her for nine (9) months in 2012. Therefore, the court terminated the Defendant's alimony for nine (9) months and credited the Defendant's overpayment against eighteen (18) of future alimony payments. Subsequently, an appeal was filed. According to the Appellate Court, alimony awards are not set in stone and can be modified if a party demonstrates a significant financial change since the alimony was first awarded. Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. Super. at 569. Further, an alimony award can be modified based upon a changed circumstance which rests with the discretion of the judge. Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17, 21 (App. Div. 2006). Cohabitation constitutes a change in circumstances. Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149, 155 (1983). The Appellate Court's review of the record displayed that the Plaintiff and her boyfriend admitted in their prior Certifications to the court that they lived together and failed to rebut that presumption therefore the Defendant was able to establish a prima facie case of changed circumstances for the time period that the Plaintiff's boyfriend was living with her, which was nine (9) months in 2012. As a result, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The laws governing alimony and cohabitation have recently been changed. It is very important that you seek out the advice of an experienced family law attorney to protect your rights an entitlements if you are considering a post-judgment modification of your alimony obligation based upon your ex-spouse's cohabitation with another person or for any other reason. 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.

Cohabitation Criteria For Alimony Termination

In Wachtell v. Wachtell, a Morris County case, the Family Court terminated alimony based upon a finding of cohabitation. The Appellate Court vacated the alimony termination order and remanded the case back to the Family Court for a plenary hearing to focus on the disputed facts with regard to the alleged cohabitation. The legal threshold to prove cohabitation for the purposes of terminating alimony has been established through case law. In Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (1999), cohabitation was defined by the existence of a relationship shown "to have stability, permanency, and mutual interdependence." See also Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. Super. 552, 570 (App. Div. 2013). Although, "living together, intertwined finances such as joint bank accounts, shared living expenses and household chores" may support a determination of cohabitation, such examples should not be considered in a vacuum. Konzelman, supra, 158 N.J. at 202. With regard to procedure, a party who pays alimony and who alleges cohabitation must first present prima facie evidence that his or her ex-spouse is in such a relationship that is tantamount to marriage. Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149, 154-55 (1983). If this initial threshold is met then the parties may engage in a discovery process. Further, it is customary for factual disputes involving alleged cohabitation to be resolved at a plenary hearing where a Family Court judge can determine the credibility of competing witnesses. Winegarden v. Winegarden, 316 N.J. Super. 52, 56 n.1 (App. Div. 1998). A hearing may be avoided if there are no disputed issues of material fact and the matter is otherwise suited for disposition on the papers. Segal v. Lynch, 417 N.J. Super. 627, 642-43 (App. Div. 2011). In this case, the Appellate Division agreed with the ex-husband that his Motion papers set forth a prima facie case of cohabitation. The Appellate Court disagreed with the findings of the Family Court, terminating alimony based upon cohabitation, because a key factual dispute was raised by the ex-wife regarding the amount of overnights that her paramour spend with her during the week. The Appellate Court reasoned that although not completely dispositive, an important factor in any cohabitation analysis is that people must cohabit to a substantial agree in order for a determination of cohabitation to be made. Therefore, because the parties disagreed over the number of nights that the ex-wife's paramour was spending with her, the Appellate Court vacated the termination of alimony Court Order and remanded the case back to the Family Court for a plenary hearing on the issue. The laws governing the issues involving alimony and cohabitation have recently been changed and it is very important that you seek out the advice of an attorney to protect your rights and entitlements. If you are considering post-judgment modification of your alimony obligation based upon your ex-spouse's cohabitation with another person 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 , emancipation, 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.

Alimony Termination Motion Upon Wife's Cohabitation

G.M. v. A.M. is a case out of Sussex County, in which the Plaintiff appealed from a Court Order that denied his motion to terminate his alimony obligation to support the Defendant based upon her cohabitation with another man. The parties in this case separated in 2008 and formally divorced in 2009 after a twenty (20) year marriage. The Defendant vacated the marital home and the Plaintiff maintained physical custody of their three (3) sons. According to the parties' divorce judgment the Plaintiff was to pay the Defendant alimony in the amount of $1,154.00 per month, which was to be taxable to the Defendant and deductible to the Plaintiff . The alimony was to be permanent alimony to terminate upon the Defendant's death, Plaintiff's death, the Defendant's re-marriage, Defendant's cohabitation with an unrelated adult in a relationship similar to a marriage or any other circumstance that would constitute a change of circumstances warranting a modification or termination of spousal support based upon the laws of New Jersey. Further, the Defendant was to pay child support to the Plaintiff in the amount of $650.00 per month for the children. Therefore, the Plaintiff was to pay $504.00 a month to the Defendant which reflected the alimony minus the child support amount. About eight (8) months after the parties' were issued their divorce judgment, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to terminate his alimony obligation to Defendant and increase her child support obligation by $200 per month to address the special needs of their middle son. The Defendant responded with a Cross-Motion seeking alimony arrears and for the emancipation of the parties' youngest son. In July of 2010, the Family Court entered an Order indicating that the Plaintiff had "shown a prima facie case" with respect to his request to terminate his alimony and allowed "discovery to demonstrate cohabitation," and the parties were to exchange Interrogatories and Notice to Produce. Three (3) years later, in 2013, the court conducted a plenary hearing to adjudicate the Plaintiff's Motion to terminate alimony based upon the Defendant's cohabitation with another man. The trial court denied the Defendant's application to rely on a document purporting to contain a legally binding definition of "cohabitation" that was materially different from the definition reflected in the parties' divorce judgment. The court agreed with the Plaintiff's argument that the "eleventh hour insertion of that issue into the mix denied him due process." Therefore, the judge accepted the Plaintiff's argument to review the Motion to terminate his alimony based upon the standards set forth in Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (1999). A mere romantic, casual or social relationship is not sufficient to justify the enforcement of a settlement agreement provision terminating alimony. A relationship of cohabitation that can be shown to have stability, permanency, and mutual interdependence must be displayed. Based upon evidence presented at the hearing, the judge found that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the Defendant was cohabitating according to the aforementioned standard. The Plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Appellate Division found that it had no legal basis to question the Motion judge's factual findings or interfere with the legal conclusions he reached in his decision. The Plaintiff was not able to present sufficient, competent evidence to satisfy the standard to terminate his alimony obligation under Konzelman. Therefore, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Family Court. The laws governing alimony and cohabitation 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 based upon your ex-spouse's cohabitation with another person 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 , emancipation, 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.

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.

Cohabitation Under New Alimony Changes

On September 10, 2014, following years of legal and legislative debate, the laws regarding alimony were amended in the state of New Jersey. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. Although the lion's share of the attention was directed at the changes to the durational aspect of alimony, there were considerable changes made that affect the modification of an existing or future alimony obligation in the event of an ex-spouse's retirement or cohabitation. An issue may arise regarding what law to apply when an existing property settlement agreement (PSA) provides that the issue of cohabitation be decided using the established case law. The language in a PSA is most commonly bargained for and negotiated amongst the parties and if it contravenes the status of the law such language could preclude the application of the amended alimony statute. To determine whether spousal support should be modified based upon cohabitation the case of Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185, 202 (1999) and Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149, 155 (1983) are most often cited and define cohabitation as an intimate, close, and enduring relationship that requires more than simply a common residence. An evaluation must look to whether or not two people were in a long term romantic relationship, shared finances, shared living expenses, and held themselves out to friends and families as a romantic couple. The amended statute's definition of cohabitation is similar but not as clearly defined. Most significant, the law requires that a trial judge consider the length of the relationship and address prior inconsistencies in the law. Being that the language of the statute is not as detailed as the case law, a question arises as to the status of the economic-based standard that was established in the Gayet case for modifying support in the event of cohabitation (whether the third-party cohabitant contributes to the dependent spouse's support or whether the third party cohabitant resides in the dependent spouse's home without contributing anything toward the expenses). A question remains as to whether or not this economic benefit test is part of the current law. The Gayet case and the cases that followed it clearly established that modification during cohabitation may mean more than simply the termination of the support obligation. Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. Super. 552, 572-73 (2013). If there is no longer an economic benefit test, any modification that is not a suspension or termination to support is unnecessary. The new alimony statute directs that "alimony may be suspended or terminated if the payee cohabitates with another person." N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. Further, the statute does not explicitly provide what facts would be necessary to warrant a suspension of support in contrast to a termination. These issues are all fact based issues that are most often decided at the discretion of the trier of fact, which is the court in these cases. Therefore, the interpretation of the new statute will be developed through future case law created by Family Court judges adjudicating these issues and remain unclear at the present time. Recent changes have been made to alimony laws making it very important that you seek the advice of an attorney to protect your rights and entitlements. If you are considering 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 Reduction As Ex-Wife Cohabitates

In the recent Appellate Division case on appeal from Morris County, Clayton v. Clayton, the Plaintiff William Clayton appealed from a post-judgment Order arguing that the Defendant, Susan Clayton's cohabitant's financial support and her earned income represent a change in circumstances to modify his alimony obligation. This case returned to the Appellate Court after the court remanded it back to the trial court for additional evidence based upon the Plaintiff's application to terminate his alimony obligation upon a change in circumstances. On remand, a new judge took the testimony of the parties and lowered the monthly reduction of alimony from $874 a month to $47. The Plaintiff then filed another appeal making the same arguments that he previously made. The parties in this case were married in 1970 and had four (4) children. They divorce in 1997 and the Defendant moved in with her cohabitant, a man named Stuart Vreeland in 2002. Initially the court found that "Cohabitation alone is not justification to terminate spousal support," and the true test for alimony is the financial needs of the dependant spouse. Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149 (1983). The question becomes whether or not the relationship had reduced the needs of the former spouse. Ozolins v. Ozolins, 308 N.J. Super. 243, 247 (App. Div. 1998). The remand judge found that the Defendant's job, which paid her $28,000 a year, did not represent a change of circumstances because she had been employed at the time of the divorce and that her income had remained approximately steady over the intervening years. The judge found that Mr. Vreeland contributed $47 less than his half of the shared expenses and the Plaintiff was in part supporting Vreeland with alimony and therefore the judge reduced the Plaintiff's alimony by $47. The Appellate Division held that the decision whether to modify or terminate alimony 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). In this case, the remand judge held a hearing where each party offered his and her testimony on the issues. The court found that if the Defendant's shared expenses represented fixed expenses that the Defendant would incur regardless of whether or not Mr. Vreeland lived with her, then it can be said that his contribution is being used to partly support the Defendant. Using the Defendant's Case Information Statement as well as documents reflecting Mr. Vreeland's contribution the Appellate Court recalculated that the Plaintiff's reduction in monthly alimony should be $934 and not $47. Therefore, the case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to enter a correct Order noting the change. 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.

Does Ex-Spouse Cohabitation With New Paramour End Alimony?

In the state of New Jersey, may people believe that if they have been divorced in the state and now have an alimony obligation, that obligation will cease if their ex-spouse begins to cohabitate with a new significant other. Some may find it very surprising that this is not necessarily the case. A person may have to prove much more than the fact that their ex-spouse is living with a new significant other to terminate an alimony obligation. Under the laws of New Jersey, a party who wishes to terminate his or her alimony obligation must prove that their ex-spouse is first engaged in an intimate and enduring relationship with a new person. This party must also prove that the ex-spouse and his or her new paramour have engaged in duties and privileges that are commonly associated with marriage, which includes - living together, commingling of finances, sharing living expenses, and the recognition of the relationship among the new couple's family and friends. Beyond this, a person must show that his or her ex-spouse has economically benefited from the cohabitation with the new significant other. Even if a party is able to prove all of the aforementioned elements, the court may only reduce the alimony obligation instead of terminating it altogether. In order to be in the best position to receive some relief from the court, a party should be prepared to demonstrate that the ex-spouse's significant other either supports them or lives with them without contributing support. In order to prove this, a party will have to present to the court a comprehensive overview of the financial arrangements of all of the other parties involved, which could prove to be a difficult and expensive endeavor. If you are facing a spouse's efforts at alimony reduction or seeking to reduce or modify alimony you should obtain an experienced family law attorney to advise you of the likelihood of success in your matter and guide you through the process. For more information about alimony or spousal support in New Jersey it is advised that you consult with an attorney with experience in this area of the law. For more information on alimony/spousal support, contested divorce, high net-worth divorce or other Family Law matters in New Jersey visit NJCivilUnionLaw.com and HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Do You Need A Written Agreement To Get Palimony?

In order to get a court to award you financial support known as "Palimony" from your former lover, even if you lived together, verbal promises of support are not enough under the new law in New Jersey. You will need to show the Court a formal written "cohabitation" or "Palimony" agreement which addresses the division of property, support, the division of joint debts, possible custody and/or parenting time issues if there are children, as well as other relevant issues. The courts look to the 2010 amendments enacted by the state legislature to the "statute of frauds" (N.J.S.A. 25:1-5) which created the requirement that in order for a "palimony" promise or agreement to be valid in this state, it must be in a signed written document and entered into with the advice of independent counsel for both parties, much like a pre-marital agreement. If you are contemplating living with your significant other, as is becoming more popular in New Jersey, who has promised to continue to take care of you "forever," and you do not want to get married or enter into a civil union, you should enter into a formal written agreement to protect your future rights to support, and for both real and personal property, in the event you break up or in case your partner passes away. If you want to establish a formal "palimony" or "cohabitation" agreement in New Jersey then you should consult with an experienced NJ family lawyer. For more information about palimony agreements, cohabitation agreements, child custody, visitation, divorce, child support or any other type of family law matter in New Jersey please visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.