The New Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to recommend passage of a bill that would allow a reduction in alimony or child support if the payor demonstrates a reduction in income due to unemployment or disability. While Family Part Judges have already had the power to grant such reductions upon a showing of changed circumstances, they have wide latitude to decide whether the reduction in income is temporary, or if it is voluntary. Judges have varied widely in the amount of attention they give to the current poor economy and its effect on earning power. The proposed added language in the Bill reads:
“The obligation to pay child support may be modified based upon
changed circumstances, which may include a diminishment of the
obligor’s income due to unemployment, temporary disability or
similar circumstances for a period lasting longer than six months,
unless the court determines that such diminution in income was
deliberately incurred by the obligor in order to evade such support
obligation or that the obligor has failed to make reasonable efforts
to secure alternative employment.”
This appears to me to be no more than a codification of existing practice, and it will be interesting to see how much difference a specific mandate like this will make in Family Part decisions. The intention of the sponsor, Representative Sean Kean (R-Monmouth & Ocean), is to ensure that financial issues between divorcing spouses are “fairly resolved and periodically assessed to ensure an undue burden is not placed on a person paying alimony.”
C. Megan Oltman
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: Family Law--
--Tagged under: Alimony--
--Tagged under: alimony modification--
--Tagged under: Child Support--
--Tagged under: child support modification--
A payee of child support filed a class action against the NJ probation department on its failure to charge post-judgment interest on child support arrears. In Lerro v NJ Department of Family Development, Office of Child Support Services (App. Div. 2011), the Court held she did not have standing (was not an appropriate class of person) both on a federal or state basis to sue on this issue because she was not the intended beneficiary of the federal requirement to calculate interest periodically.
It is my experience that post judgment interest is generally not added to child support arrears, though I feel it would be more fair to do so.
Gabrielle L. Strich, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: child support--
--Tagged under: child support arrears--
--Tagged under: arrears--
--Tagged under: interest--
--Tagged under: child support arrears interest--
--Tagged under: Lerro v NJ Department of Family Development--
--Tagged under: post judgment interest--
--Tagged under: standing--
The New Jersey Appellate Division just ruled in White v. St. Paul that where the trial court had ordered child support to be paid by garnishment of the payor parent’s wages, the full amount ordered was to be garnished, rather than allowing the payor parent to pay part of the amount directly outside of the garnishment. This ruling bolsters the right of the parent receiving support to have the payment obligation monitored by Probation. Good news for recipients, relief from the need to monitor and enforce.
C. Megan Oltman, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: Family Law--
--Tagged under: Child Support--
--Tagged under: wage garnishment--
In Ungvarsky v. Ungvarsky, the New Jersey Appellate Division this week sent a case back to the trial court to determine whether or not the payor-father’s unemployment was voluntary, a necessary step before determining whether to impute income to him for child support purposes. The mother had petitioned to have income imputed to him, and her petition was denied by the trial court without fact finding. The Appellate Division remanded for a plenary hearing. In these days of high unemployment and under-employment fact-finding is especially important to be sure that the income levels imputed to parents are as fair as possible to both parties and the children.
C. Megan Oltman, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: family law--
--Tagged under: child support--
--Tagged under: New Jersey Appellate Division--
--Tagged under: imputed imcome--
In Paulus v. Paulus, the New Jersey Appellate Division remanded for a plenary hearing to determine whether defendant was voluntarily underemployed and, if so, whether a higher level of income should be imputed when calculating his child support obligation. The plaintiff appealed from a post-judgment Family Part order reducing defendant’s obligation to pay child support, which was computed using a level of income based upon limited employment while he attended a full-time nursing program, rather than the level of earnings received while employed in the information technology field. The appellate panel concluded that the trial court erred in failing to make factual findings.
Paulus heralds a closer look by trial courts at the particular facts of a motion for child support reduction, in a time of widespread unemployment, particularly in certain industries. We hope that with this intensified scrutiny, courts will carefully balance the needs of children for sufficient support with the difficult realities of the current job market, in which many workers are forced to shift to lower paying positions due to cutbacks in their industry.
C. Megan Oltman, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: Child Support--
--Tagged under: child support modification--
--Tagged under: Underemployment--
--Tagged under: plenary hearing--
Child support can only be modified back to the date of filing the motion requesting a change in child support. This is true even if the circumstances are such that the court would agree to the change on an earlier date. In Bessinger v Klich, App. Div., 20-2-9096 decided 8/10, the defendant went on social security disability in June 2005, which created a substantial decrease in his income. He did not file for support modification until 10/6/08, and, as such, the reduction of his child support obligation could only begin on 10/6/08. Thus, as soon as a change in circumstances is clear, the party in question must file a motion for a change.
Gabrielle L. Strich, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C., and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: child support--
--Tagged under: child support modification--
--Tagged under: retroactive child support modification--
--Tagged under: Bessinger v Klich--
--Tagged under: family law--
--Tagged under: family lawyer--
--Tagged under: family--
--Tagged under: Family Law--
Did your lawyer tell you to keep all your divorce papers in a safe place so you can find them again easily? Here’s one of the reasons for it: If you need to make a motion to modify a support obligation later on, you can’t do so without filing both a current case information statement and the original case information statement filed in your divorce action, under NJ Rules of Court Rule 5:5-4(a). This requirement was recently underlined in the case of Palombi v. Palombi where the court held a motion deficient on its face, that sought a modification of financial obligations without providing a current and a prior case information statement. The deficiency was evidentiary, the court said, and could not be cured at oral argument.
C. Megan Oltman, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: family law--
--Tagged under: child support--
--Tagged under: child support modification--
--Tagged under: alimony modification--
--Tagged under: alimony--
--Tagged under: Palombi v. Palombi--
--Tagged under: case information statement--
If there is a change of circumstances, child support may be modified. In Smith v Smith, July 2010, the court held as follows:
- If there is insufficient evidence on the record, the Court must provide for discovery and hold a plenary hearing or trial to get further needed information.
- Unilateral stopping child support payments is a prima facie change of circumstances.
- Legal fees are owed by the party that unilaterally stopped child support payments; this was bad faith. Another factor was the disparity of incomes of the parties.
- The Court does not have discretion to retroactively modify child support if the parties Marital or Property Settlement Agreement provides for no retroactive modification.
Gabrielle L. Strich, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: child support--
--Tagged under: child support modification--
--Tagged under: discovery--
--Tagged under: plenary hearing--
--Tagged under: trial--
--Tagged under: stopping child support payments--
--Tagged under: legal fees--
--Tagged under: retroactive modification--
--Tagged under: marital settement agreement--
--Tagged under: family law--
--Tagged under: matrimonial law--
--Tagged under: property settlement agreement--
--Tagged under: insufficient evidence--
--Tagged under: Smith v Smith--
Once a party demonstrates a permanent, involuntary change in financial circumstances (including a reasonable job search, both in depth and length), that party may file a motion for reduction of child support and/or alimony. However, the party will probably be required to reimburse insurance premiums paid by the other party so that the policy did not lapse. See Ray v Ray, App. Div. (20-2-7586-4/10).
Gabrielle L. Strich, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: New Jersey change of circumstances--
--Tagged under: New Jersey modification of alimony--
--Tagged under: Ray v Ray--
--Tagged under: change of circumstances--
--Tagged under: insurance lapse--
--Tagged under: insurance premiums--
--Tagged under: modification of alimony--
--Tagged under: modification of child support--
--Tagged under: modification of support--
--Tagged under: new jersey insurance premiums--
--Tagged under: new jersey modification of child support--
--Tagged under: nj change of circumstances--
--Tagged under: nj insurance premium--
--Tagged under: nj modification of alimony--
--Tagged under: nj modification of chidl support--
--Tagged under: nj modification of child support--
--Tagged under: reduction in financial circumstances--
--Tagged under: reimburse insurance premiums--
--Tagged under: child support--
--Tagged under: alimony--
--Tagged under: post divorce issues--
When negotiating a divorce agreement, it is common for a husband and wife to agree to alternate the dependency exemption for the child/children of the marriage. This type of arrangement seems only fair where expenses for the children are shared between the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent paying child support. However, the parties should be aware that, as per Treasury Decision 9408, the custodial parent of the child is entitled to the dependency exemption as per the IRS, irrespective of what the divorce agreement provides. Accordingly, the non-custodial parent must secure a waiver, known as a Form 8332, from the custodial parent in which the custodial parent waives the right to the exemption for that particular year. The waiver must be attached to the non-custodial parent’s tax return.
Amy Stutzke, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site
--Tagged under: Form 8332--
--Tagged under: custodial dependency exe--
--Tagged under: custodial dependency exemption--
--Tagged under: custodial parent--
--Tagged under: dependancy--
--Tagged under: dependancy exemption in divorce--
--Tagged under: dependency exemption--
--Tagged under: divorce--
--Tagged under: waiver of exemption--
--Tagged under: family law--
--Tagged under: child support--
--Tagged under: custody--
