NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only
Cosmo Lex
Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

amending support when payor at fault

  • 1.  amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-08-2014 04:13 PM
    What is the case that stands for the proposition that a change in circumstance can not be the fault of the party seeking to amend support?  For example, if the Dad was fired for cause or broke the law he can not use that as a basis to amend his support obligation.
    -------------------------------------------
    Teri Lodge Esq.
    Woodbury NJ
    (856) 848-5858
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-08-2014 04:17 PM
    Was this cite really intended for everyone to do other people's research for them?

    -------------------------------------------
    Peter Paras Esq
    Red Bank NJ
    (732)219-9000
    -------------------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-08-2014 04:30 PM
    TSK TSK! 
     
     



    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-08-2014 06:00 PM
    Dear Colleagues:

    One of the primary purposes of this site is to provide a forum for us to discuss our work with each other.  Further, the first rule of etiquette on the CommunityNet Code of Conduct is to not challenge or attack others. 

    Dozens of posts occur weekly with discussions about issues that surely are helpful in all of our practices.  I hope that no one is discouraged from posting helpful questions such as Teri's in the future based on this one post.  Everyone should feel welcome here and actively use CommunityNet, as it is one of the greatest resources that the NJSBA has to offer.  The Family Law Section is by far the most active user of CommunityNet, and I hope that that use does not decline due to any one member's dissatisfaction with how it is and has been used for quite some time.

    -------------------------------------------
    Supti Bhattacharya Esq.
    Princeton NJ
    (609)896-8100
    -------------------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-09-2014 09:38 AM

    You are a nasty and rude person, perhaps you should get off the cite if you do not want to be supportive of other attorneys.

     




    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-09-2014 09:55 AM

    The correct spelling is- site!

     




    Original Message


  • 7.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-09-2014 10:14 AM

    My apologies, I was writing quickly; I was upset. I could not believe what I had read. Do you feel superior for having pointed this out to me?

     




    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-09-2014 10:18 AM

    Now, now! Let's all take a deep breath before we post and not take things so personally. (Neither should we attack others, hastily or otherwise. Let us try to remain as peaceful in our collaboration and camaraderie as we can to counteract the turmoil of our family law practices.)

     




    Original Message


  • 9.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-08-2014 04:47 PM

    This is a good starting point.  Payer was incarcerated.

     

    BERGEN COUNTY v. STEINHAUER, 294 N.J. Super. 507 (1996)

     

     

     

      [Non-text portion of this message removed]

    Mark F. Saker, Esquire

    Attorney ID #271831971
    Cerrato,  Saker & Wilder
    A Professional Corporation
    819 Route 33
    Freehold, New Jersey 07728
    O:  (732) 431-5000 X 125
    F:   (732) 462-0483
    C:   (732) 915-5190
    E:       [email protected]

     

    INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E‑MAIL TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL AND INTENDED ONLY FOR USE BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY INDICATED TO BE THE RECIPIENT. IF THE RECEIVER OF THIS TRANSMISSION IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM WITHOUT COPYING OR FORWARDING IT, AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY REPLY E‑MAIL. THANK YOU!    

     

    TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.

    P Consider the environment before printing this e-mail.  Please print this e-mail only if necessary.     

     




    Original Message


  • 10.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-08-2014 05:36 PM
    I had to walk away from my desk and take a deep breath. Now that more than an hour has passed, I don't feel right saying nothing.

    We are a community and whether someone is in a rush, having a bad day, or not primarily a family law practitioner and wants to run something by the rest of us, we should be supporting each other. That comment was simply inappropriate.

    This area of law is tough enough...Do I now have to start worrying that a question I have should go through a committee to be deemed "post worthy"? Of course not.

    I hope everyone has a lovely evening.

    ~ Carol



    -------------------------------------------
    Carol Goloff Esq
    Northfield NJ
    (609)646-1333
    -------------------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 11.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-08-2014 05:47 PM
    Agreed and we'll said!

    Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.



    Original Message


  • 12.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-08-2014 06:04 PM
    Agreed Carol! 

    Marleen S. Horlacher, Esq.




    Original Message


  • 13.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-08-2014 06:12 PM
    The family bar is by far one of the most collegial bars.  We all know how difficult it is to practice family law and the support we receive (I have received) from fellow practitioners, even if they are adversaries, is not only respectful but can be helpful as well.

    I posted a question Sunday night since I have a matter that has really been bothering me.  I don't think I will even get paid for it, but my client had to be represented.  I posted earlier today to thank all of those who responded online and also called me with help.  They did so willingly and with the knowledge and passion we all carry.

    If a fellow practitioner is in need of information, yes, even case law, of which I have knowledge, I will respond every time.

    Thank you again for all those that take the time. 

    -------------------------------------------
    Debra Forman Esq.
    Lambertville NJ
    (609) 397-9333
    -------------------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 14.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-09-2014 09:29 AM
    How nice!
    Sally L. Steinberg, Esq.
    Princeton, NJ
    Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry



    Original Message


  • 15.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-09-2014 11:06 AM
    Start with Kuron v. Hamilton, 331 NJ Super 561

    -------------------------------------------
    Dale Console Esq.
    Kingston NJ
    (609)683-0003
    -------------------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 16.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-09-2014 05:16 PM

    BINGO! Thanks Dale! I was starting to think I dreamt this case! Also, thanks to all for the responses, emails, calls and general support. All much appreciated!

     

    Teri S. Lodge, Esq.

    Holston, MacDonald, Uzdavinis,

    Zeigler, Lodge & Myles, P.A.

    66 Euclid Street

    Woodbury, New Jersey 08096

     

    Phone: (856)848-5858

    Fax: (856)848-1898 

     




    Original Message


  • 17.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-09-2014 05:56 PM

    Does anyone know of any cases where thecourt says that it should consider all income sources.  I have a client who ismaking a motion to terminate alimony.  Wife lives with two grown sons (26 and24) both of whom are emancipate and gainfully employed.  Wife maintains thatthey should not be made to contribute to her income and the court should notconsider it since they are trying to save money to move out.  In previousmotions to emancipate the then 23 year old, the court found that shedemonstrated bad faith and awarded me every penny of my counsel fees.

     

    Any held would be appreciated. 

     

    CharlyGayden, Esq.

    127 Livingston Avenue,#1E

    New Brunswick, NJ  08901

    (732) 828-3333 -Office

    (732) 828-3111 -Fax

    "There's aSolution to Every Problem."

     

    NOT FOR DISCOVERY

    This email (including any attachments) is forthe use of the intended recipient(s) only. This email (including attachments) is covered by theElectronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510­2521, isconfidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intendedrecipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination,distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email inerror, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are notthe intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distributethis email without the author's prior permission.We have taken precautions to minimize the risk oftransmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own viruschecks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for anyloss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in thiscommunication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-clientprivilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receivesimilar electronic messages from us in future then please respond to the senderto this effect.

     

     



    This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.





    Original Message


  • 18.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-10-2014 09:29 AM
    Charly... Is "shedemonstrated bad faith" a typo? Did you mean he? Otherwise, not following you.

    While this is not a direct answer to the question as you have framed it, I think you might find some inspiration reading Glass v. Glass, 366 N.J. Super. 357 (App. Div. 2004).

    -------------------------------------------
    Curtis Romanowski Esq.
    Senior Attorney - Proprietor
    Metuchen NJ
    (732)603-8585
    -------------------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 19.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-10-2014 01:34 PM

    No, I'm sorry, Curt, I meant "shedemonstrated bad faith."   Thanks for the case.  I will take a look. 

     

    CharlyGayden, Esq.

    127 Livingston Avenue,#1E

    New Brunswick, NJ  08901

    (732) 828-3333 -Office

    (732) 828-3111 -Fax

    "There's aSolution to Every Problem."

     

    NOT FOR DISCOVERY

    This email (including any attachments) is forthe use of the intended recipient(s) only. This email (including attachments) is covered by theElectronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510­2521, is confidentialand may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you arehereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying ofthis communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notifythe sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intendedrecipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this emailwithout the author's prior permission.We have taken precautions to minimize the risk oftransmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own viruschecks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for anyloss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in thiscommunication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-clientprivilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receivesimilar electronic messages from us in future then please respond to the senderto this effect.

     

     




    Original Message


  • 20.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-10-2014 01:54 PM
    Has anyone had a situation where a couple were married out-of-state in an alternative marriage and then moved to NJ which does not permit the alternative ceremony.
    Mike Berman
     
     



    Original Message


  • 21.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-10-2014 02:55 PM
    Mike, are you talking about a same-sex marriage?  What do you mean by "alternative?"

    -------------------------------------------
    Debra Guston Esq.
    Glen Rock NJ
    (201)447-6660
    -------------------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 22.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-10-2014 03:11 PM
    Common-law or Amish marriage in PA
     
     



    Original Message


  • 23.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-10-2014 03:47 PM
    There are no valid common law marriages after January 1, 2005.

    ccs

    PLEASE NOTE WE MOVED DOWN THE CORRIDOR...
    NEW ADDRESS OF SHAINBERG & VIOLA, PC IS
    ONE S. BROAD ST., SUITE 1845, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107

    ALL ELSE REMAINS THE SAME!

    Check us out at www.shainberg.com

    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic communication and accompanying documents contain information from the law firm of Shainberg & Viola which is confidential and/or legally privileged.
    The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure,
    copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and
    review by any individual other than the intended recipient shall not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client, work-product, joint-defense and/or other applicable privileges.
    In this regard, if you have received this electronic communication in error, please notify us immediately.



    >
    Original Message


  • 24.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-10-2014 04:11 PM
    Yes, NJ does not recognize the formation of common law marriages in NJ, but, if a common law marriage was validly formed in another state, NJ may give comity recognition to those marriages, as it would to any validly formed foreign state marriage.   

    -------------------------------------------
    Debra Guston Esq.
    Glen Rock NJ
    (201)447-6660
    -------------------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 25.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-10-2014 04:18 PM
    But common law marriage are not valid in PA after January 1, 2005. So when becomes an issue.

    ccs

    PLEASE NOTE WE MOVED DOWN THE CORRIDOR...
    NEW ADDRESS OF SHAINBERG & VIOLA, PC IS
    ONE S. BROAD ST., SUITE 1845, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107

    ALL ELSE REMAINS THE SAME!

    Check us out at www.shainberg.com

    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic communication and accompanying documents contain information from the law firm of Shainberg & Viola which is confidential and/or legally privileged.
    The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure,
    copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and
    review by any individual other than the intended recipient shall not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client, work-product, joint-defense and/or other applicable privileges.
    In this regard, if you have received this electronic communication in error, please notify us immediately.



    >
    Original Message


  • 26.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-10-2014 04:55 PM
    That would depend on when the marriage was formed - I believe the statute says that the state will not recognize any common law marriages CONTRACTED AFTER 1/5/2005 
    -------------------------------------------
    Debra Guston Esq.
    Glen Rock NJ
    (201)447-6660
    -------------------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 27.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-10-2014 05:36 PM

    Common law marriages in NJ were declared invalid in 1939.  If you know someone who a common law marriage before then who is still alive, savor it. 

     




    Original Message


  • 28.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-10-2014 11:31 AM

    Not so sure that her refusal to make her sons pay rent is a basis to modify or terminate alimony.  Presumably, they agreed on an amount based on her and your client's income at the time.  Whether she charges them or not is not a factor, if your client's income has not changed.  It is as if he is basing his application on her refusal to work a second job. 

     




    Original Message


  • 29.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-10-2014 01:34 PM

    No, not that at all.  They are both nowreceiving social security and collecting pensions.  He is unable to work due tocancer diagnosis and treatment. I believe there should be given someconsideration to having adults in the house who are contributing to herexpenses.  If she were renting it out, then there would certainly be given someconsideration as this would be rental income. It the same or similar situationhere.  I'm looking at the unpublished case of Gordon v Gordon where the parties' 32 year old sonlived with the wife who contributed nothing and was saving money to buy ahouse.  The wife conceded that she overstated her expenses for this two personhousehold.  The Appellate  Div stated that the son was the beneficiary of the householdexpenses and remanded the case so that the trial court could do an analysis ofhow that affected the wife's lifestyle an actual needs.  I think thishelps. 

     

    Thanks.

     

    CharlyGayden, Esq.

    127 Livingston Avenue,#1E

    New Brunswick, NJ  08901

    (732) 828-3333 -Office

    (732) 828-3111 -Fax

    "There's aSolution to Every Problem."

     

    NOT FOR DISCOVERY

    This email (including any attachments) is forthe use of the intended recipient(s) only. This email (including attachments) is covered by theElectronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510­2521, is confidentialand may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you arehereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying ofthis communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notifythe sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intendedrecipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this emailwithout the author's prior permission.We have taken precautions to minimize the risk oftransmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own viruschecks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for anyloss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in thiscommunication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-clientprivilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receivesimilar electronic messages from us in future then please respond to the senderto this effect.

     

     




    Original Message


  • 30.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-10-2014 01:54 PM

    Yes, but if his income was not reduced, which is what I took from the first post, what she does not make would be irrelevant.  If his income is down, and he would be entitled to a reduction, the amount of it would depend, in part, on her income both real and imputed. 

     




    Original Message


  • 31.  RE: amending support when payor at fault

    Posted 07-09-2014 11:36 AM
    To the question - the burden is on a payor to obtain a reduction.  I'm not sure if it's in the text of Lepis or another case, but a change in circumstances justifying a reduction needs to be "permanent and involuntary."  It would seem so self-evident that one wouldn't need to cite a case.  Assuming the obligor now does all he/she can to return to a previous income history, I think eventually a court would grant relief (depending on the facts), but no time soon. 

    And, when it comes to enforcement the focus would be on whether there is a current ability to pay justifying coercive action, but that would be a separate issue from whether a modification is appropriate.

    -------------------------------------------
    - Dave

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax: 609-737-3222
    ------------------------------------------- 


    Original Message