My understanding and experience is that a child support obligation is no longer subject to automatic triennial review. A threshold showing of a change in circumstances (regardless of simple passage of time) is required before financial disclosure and an adjustment in support will be ordered.
I remember when this changed (when Martin was decided) and it being "big news" - that one could no longer simply say "three years have passed - review the CS." I think there was even a Rule modification to reflect this.
Has anyone had a difference experience in the years since Martin? I can't find any contrary law (and there's several unpublished appeals that cite it with approval), but does anyone have any contrary experience (be it rule, statute, or ancedotal experience)? In other words, is the below accurate? It's an extremely important point, especially as the below will be heard by a judge who hasn't sat in Family since 2009.
THANKS!
Please confirm that you received this email and referenced attachments (if any).
- Dave
David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro ----------------------------------------------------
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
<x-tab> </x-tab>2.Defendants incorrectly assert that New Jersey law permits automatic triennial review of support orders without a <x-tab> </x-tab>separately demonstrated change in circumstances.
Citing to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56-9a, defendants claim that obligors are entitled to an automatic triennial review of a support obligation, urging that this provides a key protection as orders being enforced via automatic license suspension are unlikely to be stale. See, e.g., Db 4. This has not been the law in New Jersey since 2009.
In Doring v. Doring, 285 N.J.Super. 369 (Ch.Div.1995), the court held that child support orders were subject to review every three years regardless of whether a separate change of circumstances was demonstrated. The ruling was based on the then-existing language of N.J.S.A. 2A:17 56.9a, which required that "the state must have in effect laws requiring the periodic review of all Title IV D child support orders." Id. at 372 citing 42 U.S.C.A. § 666.
In March 1998, the statute was amended to add the qualifier that triennial review was required "unless the State has developed an automated cost of living [COLA] adjustment program for child support payments." Shortly thereafter, in November 1998, the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted Rule 5:6B, which provides for a biennial review of support orders to apply a COLA based on the consumer price index.
The amendment to the statute, and the clarification that triennial review was therefore no longer mandated, was noted in Martin v. Martin, 410 N.J. Super. 1 (Ch.Div. 2009). The Martin decision has been repeatedly cited by the Appellate Division for this point. See, e.g., DiPasquale v. DiPasquale, No. A 6188 12T2 (App.Div. 2014); Meccia v. Meccia, A 2496 10T4 (App.Div. 2012); Scialabba v. Scialabba, No. A 4575 09T1 (App.Div. 2011); Denicola v. Denicola, No. A 4242 08T3 (App.Div. 2010).1 In order to obtain review of a child support obligation, a litigant must navigate the labyrinth of post-judgement motion procedure, pay a filing fee ($50 for FM matters, $25 for FD matters) and demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the original order. Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980).
1
As these unpublished cases are not cited for any independent legal holding, but simply to demonstrate that Martin has been repeatedly cited by higher courts, copies are not attached.