ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Local Law Blogs Blogs -> New Jersey Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Local Law Blogs

: New Jersey Law Blog

Proof of a Party's Substantial Change in Circumstances is Required Before a Court Will Modify Alimony

By Maria P. Imbalzano

ADVERTISEMENTS

Either party in a post-judgment divorce action may make an application to modify alimony based on a substantial change in circumstances. The party seeking modification has the burden of demonstrating a change in circumstance which would warrant relief. A reduction in income is the number one reason for a party to seek a modification of alimony. However, that change is only part of the calculus to be considered in determining whether alimony should be modified. The trial court must not only examine earnings of the parties but also how they have utilized their income and assets in the past.

If the parties borrowed money to maintain their standard of living during the marriage, then there may be no change in circumstances to support a modification of alimony if the paying party comes into Court stating that he has to borrow money to meet his alimony obligation.

In a recent case, the ex-Husband, who is an attorney, sought to reduce his alimony obligation because:

  • his law firm was dissolving;
  • the firm had been operating at a loss requiring he and his partners to borrow money from the firm's line of credit;
  • his income was reduced;
  • he was paying a high interest rate on a loan; and
  • he had recently opened his own firm

The Court found that these reasons were insufficient to meet the Husband's burden of proving changed circumstances. The Husband offered no information to the Court regarding his personal income drawn from the firm's credit line, and he did not present any facts showing a change in his standard of living other than downgrading from a Porsche to a BMW. The Court stated that since the Husband opened his own law firm and brought many of his clients with him, he was employed and had the potential of earning a similar salary as he had in the past. Therefore, the Husband's request to reduce alimony was denied. 

It is important to note that when a self-employed party files for a reduction in alimony, the Courts are wary that such individuals are in a better position to present an unrealistic picture of their actual income to the Court than a W-2 wage earner. In any event, if the Husband in the above case had presented more financial information to support his position, the outcome may have been different.

Full post as published by New Jersey Law Blog on February 11, 2011 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.002 secs (from cache 11/01/26 00:55:33)