Articles Tagged with termination

|

In Amzler v. Amzler, (Docket No. A-3384-18), 2020 N.J. Super. LEXIS 38 (App. Div. 2020), the  retirement-300x200Appellate Division provided direction on the effect of the September 2014 amendments to New Jersey’s alimony statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 as it relates to a litigant’s desire to retire before his full retirement age and stop paying alimony.   Before the 2014 amendments, a party seeking to modify an alimony obligation was required to “demonstrate that changed circumstances have substantially impaired the ability to support himself or herself.” Landers v. Landers, 444 N.J. Super. 315, 320 (App. Div. 2016) (quoting Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157(1980)).  The Legislature amended the alimony statute to add subsection (j), which applies in situation applies in situations involving “the prospective or actual retirement of the obligor.”

In  the Amzler case, the parties in 2009 signed a matrimonial settlement agreement (MSA) that required the plaintiff to pay alimony.  The MSA contained an “anti-Lepis” provision, meaning that a “voluntary reduction in income of either party” would not constitute a substantial change in circumstance for the purpose of reviewing alimony.  After the parties’ divorce, the plaintiff continued to work, but due to medical reasons, retired before reaching full retirement age. The defendant filed a motion seeking to enforce the MSA and the plaintiff’s alimony obligation; the plaintiff filed a cross motion seeking to terminate or reduce his alimony obligation due to his retirement.

The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion to terminate alimony, relying on section N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(2) of the alimony statute, which applies when a payor spouse retires before reaching full-retirement age. The defendant argued that the judge incorrectly applied subjection (j)(2) of the statute rather than subsection (j)(3), which governs the review of final alimony orders or agreements that were established before the effective date of the 2014 statutory amendments.

Continue reading ›

|

On May 3, 2018 the New Jersey Appellate  Division published the case of DCPP VS. T.D., R.C. AND R.G., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.G., B.C. AND A.G. (FG-20-0040-13, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (A-4918-c1b55e653e97997fd3f08500aae0ee83-225x30015T1/A-4923-15T1), an Opinion affirming the trial court’s decision to not terminate the parental rights of T.D., a mother suffering from multiple sclerosis, and R.C., the father of her two youngest children, born in 2012 and 2014, and removed from the care of their parents soon after birth.  The Appellate Division, in denying the appeals of the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division), and the Law Guardian on behalf of the two young children, stated that the “United States Supreme Court has held that biological parents’ relationships with their children ‘is an interest far more precious than any property right.’ Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59 (1982). Therefore, New Jersey courts protect that interest by imposing “strict standards for the termination of parental rights.” Continue reading ›

|

In September 2014, the New Jersey Legislature amended this State’s statute on alimony.   Among thefile0001270953716 changes that the new alimony statute contains was a provision related to retirement.    The addition that the Legislature made to the alimony statute to include a provision for alimony is lengthy.  N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j) now provides that alimony may be modified or terminated “upon the prospective or actual retirement of the obligor.”   Continue reading ›

|

We have written previously about issues of cohabitation and it’s impact on the right and obligation to receive and pay alimony. We have also written about the courts’ attitudes towards the file0001849487704enforcement of Property Settlement Agreements. On May 3, 2016 the Supreme Court of New Jersey in the matter of Quinn -v- Quinn, — NJ — (2016) [(A-5-14) (074411)], addressed the issue of enforcing terms of a Property Settlement Agreement involving the effect of cohabitation on provisions dealing with alimony in the matter. In this matter the parties, who were married in 1983, entered into a Property Settlement Agreement in 2006 providing that upon the Wife’s cohabitation, per case or statutory law, her alimony would terminate. Continue reading ›

|

In New Jersey, it is well established that both parties have an obligation to support their children financially.  Accordingly, child support obligations are one of the primary issues dealt with when a marriage or relationship ends between people who have children, whether it be my consensual agreement or court order. However, the amount of child support due may be subject to a later modification.  After the entry of a child support obligation, there are a number situations or circumstances that can occur that might warrant a later termination of modification of that child support obligation, including but not nearly limited to the following: the child’s emancipation, a change in the child’s needs, the involuntary loss of income to one of the parents, or a substantial increase in the income of either parent. Continue reading ›

|

Previously we have written about the 2014 modifications to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 which dramatically changed the law in New Jersey as it relates to alimony. As outlined in that blog, the statute not only eliminated permanent alimony as a judicial option but clarified the law as it related to the impact of: cohabitation, retirement and loss of employment on alimony. The effective date of that statute is September 10, 2014. The bar has been awaiting cases dealing with the new alimony statute’s impact on new matters as well as how it would apply to matters resolved prior to its effective date. Continue reading ›

|

It is not uncommon for someone who is paying alimony to a former spouse to be concerned about or to find him or herself faced the scenario of paying alimony to a former spouse who becomes involved in a committed, romantic relationship with a paramour but is not remarried.  The person paying alimony often suspects that the former spouse is choosing to not to remarry because the remarriage will result in a termination of alimony.   The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that such “cohabitation” is a change in circumstance that can trigger the court revisiting the issue of alimony.  Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149, 154-55 (1983). Continue reading ›