Proving a Change in Circumstances
The divorce was long ago finalized. Either the parties have agreed on alimony and child support payments, or the judge has ordered them. However, situations do not always stay the same. Proving a change in circumstances comes with its share of considerations.
Making a Case for Lowering/Increasing Alimony and Child Support
It goes without saying that one party cannot arbitrarily decide to lower their alimony and child support payments. Anytime a court has entered a written order, a judge must approve any modifications. This is initiated by making a motion based on a change of circumstances. The party requesting the reduction or increase has the burden of proof when it comes to establishing the change in circumstances.
The law regarding the determination of alimony and child support awards is found in NJSA 2A:34-23. There is a section of this law that specifically deals with modifications. The standard for modifications to existing divorce orders is further spelled out in Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 416 A.2d 45 (1980). This case provides examples of what the courts have considered a change in circumstances as follows:
- Increase in the cost of living
- Increase or decrease in the supporting spouse’s income
- Illness, disability or infirmity arising after the original judgment
- Dependent spouse’s loss of a house or apartment
- Dependent spouse’s cohabitation with another
- Subsequent employment by the dependent spouse
- Changes in federal income tax law
Proving the Change of Circumstances
As a law firm that practices family law exclusively, the Law Offices of Sam Stoia is quite familiar with the standards required to prove a change of circumstances. In the newly unpublished New Jersey Appellate Division opinion, Snyder v. Snyder, No. A-0694-14T3. (App. Div. January 20, 2016.), the courts speak more on this issue.
Kurt and Ellen Snyder were married in 1980 and divorced in 2005. Included as part of the September 27, 2005 divorce decree, was a property settlement agreement signed by both parties. Among other things, it contained language relative to alimony and child support payments.
At the time of the divorce, Kurt Snyder was a landscape architect; Ellen Snyder was unemployed. Mr. Snyder continued to work for the same employer even after the divorce. However, he claimed that his income was tied to the profits of his employer. When the recession hit, Mr. Snyder’s income decreased. In 2013, an application for a reduction in payments was made on Mr. Snyder’s behalf.
The court evaluated the request made in support of a change of circumstances. It noted that the Mr. Snyder showed no attempts to seek other employment that would return him to the level of pay earned at the time of the divorce hearing. For this reason, the lower court and the Appellate Division agreed, there was no change in circumstances.
Contact Us
Whether you need assistance after or during a divorce, you need experienced legal advice. Contact us for a complimentary appointment to discuss your circumstances.