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.

Alimony Modification Denied For Lack Of Changed Circumstances

Jill Bier was seeking an increase in the monthly alimony of $25,000 she was receiving from her former husband Robert Bier. Ms. Bier appealed the denial of her application for upward modification of alimony payments by Robert Bier. The couple's final judgment of divorce, which occurred in 2003, made it clear that Jill Bier's monthly medical expenses would increase. The New Jersey Superior Court, Somerset County, Family Part judge hearing the motion for reconsideration noted the substantial discrepancy between Jill Bier's Case Information Statement (CIS), indicating $17,194 monthly in medical expenses and the certification she submitted in support of her motion which indicated $6,000 per month in medical expenses. Jill Bier provided no documentation of her claimed expenses, her condition or any change therein since the divorce. The judge found Jill Bier's credibility to be questionable in light of conflicting claims of being nearly bed ridden yet purchasing a Mercedes E550 and incurring commuting expenses of $5,500 monthly. In Bier v. Bier, the New Jersey Appellate Division determined that no as there was no prima facie showing of changed circumstances, as required under Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980), no evidentiary hearing was required. The Appellate Division followed Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17 (App. Div. 2006) in holding that the decision to modify an alimony obligation based on claims of changed circumstances rests with the family part judge. Finding no reason to disturb the decision, the N.J. Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the trial judge. If you are facing divorce, alimony can have lasting and substantial consequences upon your future whether you are the obligee or the obligor. It is imperative that you obtain an experienced divorce attorney for your divorce or motion for modification in order to ensure that your rights are protected. For more information about divorce, alimony, child support and other family law matters visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Post-Judgment Appeal To Unseal Ex Parte Transcript Is Moot

In Gearey v. Gearey, the Defendant, Lillian Gearey, appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order denying her post-judgment modification Motion seeking to "reveal the 'super secret ex parte' protected [o]rder" with regard to a hearing that was conducted between the judge, her ex-husband and her ex-husband's attorney. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. The parties in this case were married in 1979 and two (2) sons were born of the marriage - one in 1988 and the other in 1991. In 1999, the parties were divorced pursuant to a final divorce judgment which incorporated a property settlement agreement (PSA). The parties have engaged litigation multiple times since their divorce to deal with post judgment issues. The Defendant provided the Appellate Court with a transcript from 2009, which she specifically ordered for this appeal, that depicted a hearing that was held with regard to the Plaintiff's application to the court to reduce his support amount. At the time, the judge sealed (pursuant to Rule 1:38-11) the proceeding and specifically closed it to the Defendant and her attorney. The proceeding was a discussion involving the judge, the Plaintiff, and his counsel only, with regard to the attorney's request to be allowed to withdraw as counsel. Almost two (2) weeks after this, the Plaintiff's attorney wrote a letter to the court stating that the Plaintiff withdrew his application to modify his support obligation. The Appellate Division noted, that the Defendant had raised the issue of this protected Order on numerous other occasions and has been "denied numerous times." Further, the Defendant's appellate brief was "difficult to decipher," as she sought an "Order," with regard to the issuance of the "secret ex parte Order" but the court had no indication that an Order was ever generated after the "secret" on-record discussion that took place in 2009. The court opines, "Rather than an order, perhaps defendant has been seeking a copy of the sealed transcript of the proceeding where she and her attorney were excluded." Further, it was unclear to the Appellate Division why the transcript was even provided to the Defendant in the first place for the appeal in the absence of an Order unsealing it pursuant to Rule 1:38-12. Most obviously, the Appellate Court noted that the 2009 transcript it received was ordered six (6) weeks after the Family Court's 2013 Order from which this appeal spawned from. The court assumes that the receipt of the transcript might have satisfied the Defendant's need to know what the 2009 ex parte discussion was about. If that was the case, the entire appeal was moot. According to the court, "An issue is moot when the decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect on the existing controversy." Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006). The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the lower court citing that the rest of the Defendant's arguments were without merit. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your child support or alimony obligations it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification , divorce, alimony, 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.

Appellate Court Reversed Post-Judgment Modification to Divorce

In Antonoff v. Antonoff, the Appellate Court ruled on a post-judgment modification case where the Plaintiff appealed from an amended Final Divorce Judgment involving alimony, child support, and equitable distribution, and a court order sanctioning him and denying his motion for reconsideration. The parties in this case were married in 1987 and there were three children born of the marriage. For the majority of their marriage, the Plaintiff, Roy Antonoff, owned and operated a heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning installation company. The Defendant, Sandra Antonoff, was a stay at home mother who returned to work as a medical biller in 2008 because the Plaintiff's business lost its book of business. During the years of 2009 and 2010, the Plaintiff secured work at his brother's air-conditioning company earning substantially less than he had when he was operating his own business. In 2012, the Family Court judge entered a Final Judgment of Divorce, imputed the Plaintiff's income under Rule 5:6A of the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines to $67,910, and awarded the Defendant: $788 a month in alimony, $4,200 from the sale of the parties' car, and $6,587.45 in attorney's fees. Subsequently, the judge denied the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the divorce judgment and one year later amended the judgment to reduce his child support obligation from $192 to $168 to be paid bi-weekly. The Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the Family Court judge failed to consider his pro-se post-trial summation, erred in denying his motion for reconsideration, abused her discretion by awarding the Defendant counsel fees as a sanction against him, wrongly imputed his income, miscalculated his alimony amount, and inequitably distributed the parties' cars. The New Jersey Appellate Court reversed and remanded the lower court's decision. First, the Appellate Court found that the Family Court judge erred by failing to consider the Plaintiff's written summation and ordered that the lower court do so on remand. Next, the court found that the Family Court correctly determined that the Plaintiff was voluntarily unemployed and subsequently had to impute the Plaintiff's income. In its holding, the Appellate Court stated that "family courts are presumed to possess special expertise in matters such as the calculation of support obligations" and therefore their determinations are entitled to a high degree of deference. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998); Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). Further, the court found that the Family Court judge incorrectly imputed the Plaintiff's income because she did not "realistically appraise plaintiff's ability to earn income by considering plaintiff's job opportunities and his experience. . . ." In addition, the Appellate Division held that certain changes needed to be made to the way the lower court equitably distributed the parties vehicles. According to the court, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.1, the trial court must consider factors such as the duration of the marriage, the income or property the parties brought to the marriage, and their economic circumstances at the time of the division and that the Family Court judge made findings that were unsupported by adequate evidence in the record. Finally, the Appellate court vacated the order sanctioning the Plaintiff and set aside the award of counsel fees without prejudice. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your divorce judgment, alimony award, or child support obligation it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modifications, divorce, alimony, 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.

Post-Judgment Relocation Requirements Reviewed

Pursuant to Baures v. Lewis, the parent seeking to relocate to another state with the child has the burden of proof to show that there is a good faith reason for the proposed move and the proposed move will not be inimical to the child’s interests. In making a determination as to the removal, the Court must address the following factors: (i) reasons given for the move; (ii) reasons given for the opposition; (iii) past history of dealings between the parents; (iv) whether the child will receive educational, health and leisure opportunities at least equal to what is available here; (v) any special needs or talents of the child; (vi) whether a parenting time and communication schedule can be developed that will allow the non-custodial parent to maintain a full and continuous relationship with the child; (vii) the likelihood the custodial parent will continue to foster the child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent; (viii) the effect the move on extended family relationships here and in the new location; (ix) if the child is of age, their preference; (x) whether the child is entering their senior year in high school; (xi) whether the non-custodial parent has the ability to relocate; and (xii) any other factor bearing on the child’s interest. Based on a recent review of the Baures factors, the Court in Benjamin v. Benjamin held that it is not mandatory that a custodial parent have a specific job or promise of guaranteed employment in another state to relocate. It was noted that to require the custodial parent to show proof of a specific job or promise of guaranteed employment is often impractical as they do not even know when or if the Court will grant them the ability to relocate. Instead, the Court found that the practical and relevant question should focus on the custodial parent’s plan to provide a financially stabile household once in the new state. For that reason, the custodial parent’s relocation plan must include a look at their employment and work history. This would also include consideration of the long-term financial stability of the decision to relocate despite employment status. The Court further recognized that the financial reasonableness of quitting current employment and future economic stability, which can inimically affect the child’s security and emotional health, as the child’s interest must be at the forefront of the decision. In Benjamin, the court viewed the custodial parent’s longtime history of steady, stable employment, their having sought and found potential employers, their employment skills, their ability to present as articulate and intelligence and their history of responsibly caring for the child, both financially and otherwise, as evidence that the relocation request was reasonable and in no way irresponsible, impulsive or financially inimical to the child’s interests. If you are considering a post judgment relocation motion you will be addressing critical issues and should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on alimony, equitable distribution, child support, child custody, parenting time/visitation, adoption, dissolution of a civil union, marriage or domestic partnership, modifications or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com This blog is for informational purposes only and is in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.