Facts of the Mani Case

The Mani’s were married in 1973 and over the course of their marriage they enjoyed a high standard of living, financed almost entirely by income from the wife’s father’s business and investments. As the marriage progressed Mr. Mani not only dropped out of full-time work, but when the parties retired he began to have an affair with the couples’ mutual friend. Mrs. Mani soon filed for divorce, and because the parties couldn’t settle their case a trial took place.

The trial judge awarded Mr. Mani alimony in the amount of $610 per week which Mr. Mani felt was insufficient to meet his post-divorce needs. Mrs. Mani felt that the judge had erred and that her ex-husband wasn’t entitled to any alimony at all. Both parties appealed the judges alimony ruling. The Appellate Division found that evidence of the husband’s marital indiscretions and significant adultery should be taken into account in determining whether alimony should be paid to him at all. The Appellate Division also ruled that, even if the husband was entitled to alimony, his actions could effect the amount of alimony that he was entitled to receive. Mr. Mani appealed the Appellate Division ruling to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

In their decision the Supreme Court laid down rules that could be applied in future cases with regard to the question of whether there was any level of marital fault which could lead to a reduction or denial of alimony. After conducting a detailed review of the history and impact of marital fault in alimony cases, and the evolution of no-fault alimony as the law in New Jersey, the Supreme Court ruled that there are two instances in which marital fault can affect alimony in New Jersey: (1) If the marital misconduct affects the economic status quo of the parties it may be taken into consideration in the calculation of alimony; and (2) If one of the parties engages in “egregious conduct” or in “egregious fault” that party may be denied alimony which they would otherwise be entitled to.

With regard to marital misconduct which affects the parties economic circumstances, the court gave the example of a situation where one spouse gambles away marital retirement assets and there are no remaining assets to offset the loss. With regard to conduct which is so egregious that it can lead to a total loss of alimony, the court gave examples of one spouse’s attempt to murder the other spouse, and one spouses deliberate infection of the other spouse with a loathsome disease. The court found that in the Mani case, Mr. Mani’s conduct violated neither prong of marital misconduct. The court found that his misconduct (significant adultery and marital indiscretions) did not have an effect on the party’s economic status quo. It also found that his adultery and indiscretions were not so egregious as to violate the social contract and therefore alimony could be awarded to him.

Lessons Learned from the Mani Case

The take away from the Mani case is that for better or worse, in New Jersey, marital fault such as repeated adulteries, infidelities, habitual drunkenness etc., will not have an effect on alimony unless the conduct has a serious effect on the party’s financial circumstances, and the harm caused cannot be otherwise rectified through distribution of other marital assets. The second takeaway from the Mani case is that the husband or wife will only lose their right to alimony if their misconduct is borderline criminal – e.g. attempted murder, intentional transmission of an incurable, vile and loathsome disease, or such other equally heinous acts.

If you have questions about marital fault and its effects on alimony in New Jersey do not hesitate to call me toll-free at 844-431-3380. You can also email me using the e-mail contact form. I have been representing clients in family law cases in northern New Jersey for over 20 years. My clients are drawn primarily  from Bergen, Hudson, Essex, Passaic, Union and Middlesex counties. Whether you contact me by telephone or email your initial consultation is free of charge.

The Other Dependent Deduction

An example will help illustrate how the other dependent deduction is calculated and applied in a typical child support case. First, it should be pointed out that the other dependent deduction is only applicable in cases where your partner or spouse is paying child support and you and your partner/spouse have a child born or adopted of your relationship. If this is your situation the court allows you to deduct hypothetical child support that your spouse would be paying to you if you did not live together. This hypothetical stream of child support is calculated by using the child support worksheet. On the child support worksheet you are deemed the custodial parent and your spouse is deemed the noncustodial parent. Your incomes are plugged into the worksheet and the worksheet is utilized to come up with a bottom-line weekly hypothetical child support amount that your spouse/partner would be paying to you if you did not live together. This fictional amount that your spouse/partner is paying to you for his or her other dependent (your child together) is deducted from your spouse/partner’s weekly income in determining his or her income available for child support purposes for your stepchildren. So if your spouse/partner’s weekly income is $1000 and the hypothetical child support that they pay to you is $200 a week their weekly income available for child support to be paid for your stepchildren is $800 per week.

It should be noted that if you have a child from a prior relationship and your spouse/partner has a child from a prior relationship the other dependent deduction doesn’t apply. (The applicable deduction in this case is the amount that has been ordered, or agreed to, under a prior child support order or agreement).

Adoption of Stepchildren

The only scenario in which a step-parent can become economically liable for the support of a stepchild is if the step-parent takes the affirmative step of formally adopting their stepchild. The formal adoption process is a court process which requires termination of the natural parent’s rights and the creation of a new parent-child relationship between the step-parent and step-child. Without this process taking place there is no grounds for support to be ordered between step-child and step-parent.

If you have any questions about economic support for step-children give me a call toll-free at 844-431-3380, or email me using the email contact form. I’ve been practicing family law, and representing clients in child support cases for over 20 years. My client base is drawn primarily from Bergen, Passaic, Essex, Hudson, Union and Middlesex counties. The initial consultation with my office, whether by email or telephone, is free of charge.

Initial Custody Awards

When two parents have not been to court previously to decide who is the parent of primary residence (PPR) and who is the parent of alternate residence (PAR) the court has to make an initial determination of custody. New Jersey Statute section 9:2-4 empowers the court to make that initial decision. In order to make a custody decision the court considers the following factors:

(1) The parents’ ability to agree, communicate and cooperate in matters relating to the child;

(2) The parent’s willingness to accept custody and any history of unwillingness to allow parenting time not based on substantiated abuse;

(3) The interaction and relationship of the child with its parents and siblings;

(4) The history of domestic violence, if any;

(5) The safety of the child and the safety of either parent from physical abuse by the other parent;

(6) The preference of the child when of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent decision;

(7) The needs of the child;

(8) The stability of the home environment offered;

(9) The quality and continuity of the child’s education;

(10) The fitness of the parents – A parent shall not be deemed unfit unless the parents’ conduct has  substantial adverse effect on the child.

(11) The geographical proximity of the parents’ homes;

(12) The extent and quality of the time spent with the child prior to or subsequent to the separation;

(13) The parents’ employment responsibilities;

(14) The age and number of the children;

Rule 1:40-5 Procedure On Custody Motion or Complaint

Procedurally, when one parent files a motion or complaint for custody in New Jersey Court Rule 1:40-5 requires that, if the motion papers raise a genuine and substantial issue regarding custody or parenting time, then the matter must be referred to mediation. Some judges follow this Rule, while others may have an initial hearing before deciding on whether to refer the case to mediation.

Rule 5:8-1 Custody Investigations

If the parties are referred to mediation and mediation fails to resolve the custody and parenting time issues, then the provisions of New Jersey Court Rule 5:8-1 and successive sections come into play. Rule 5:8-1 permits the court to order an investigation before any custody award is made to either parent. The investigation will include a review of:

(1) The character and fitness of the parents;

(2) The economic condition of the family;

(3) The parties’ homes – the review is limited to a factual description of the home where the child will reside or visit;

(4) Whether there are appropriate child safety precautions in the home;

(5) The number of household members and their relationship to the child;

(6) Criminal record checks for both parents;

Rule 5:8-5 Custody and Parenting Time Plan

In advance of a custody trial both parents have to submit a custody and parenting time plan to the court. The plan is a detailed summary of each parents proposal for how they want the court to resolve the custody and parenting time issues.

Rule 5:8-6 Court Interview with the Child

New Jersey Court Rule 5:8-6 also permits a court to interview the child who is the subject of the custody case.

Request for Change in Custody

Once the initial custody determination has been made if either parent wants to change the custody arrangement they have to show the court, first and foremost, that there has been a substantial change in circumstances which effect the best interests of the child. If they cannot show the court that there has been a substantial change in circumstances since the initial custody order was entered the court will not grant their request for a custody hearing. If they can demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances which effects the welfare of the child then a custody hearing will be set up.

If you are involved in a custody dispute, or if you have any questions about the procedure for determining custody in New Jersey, feel free to contact me via telephone or e-mail. My number is 844-431-3380. I have been representing clients in Northern New Jersey, including: Bergen, Passaic, Hudson, Essex, Union and Middlesex counties, for over 20 years. Your initial consultation is free.

Relevant Facts of the Baures Case

In the Baures case the mother, a Wisconsin native, wanted to relocate from New Jersey back to Wisconsin with the parties developmentally disabled child. The father, who was an Iowa native, wanted the child to remain in New Jersey. After a hearing the trial judge denied the mother’s relocation application.

The mother appealed the trial judge’s decision to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision, and denied the mother’s relocation application. The mother then appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The New Jersey Supreme Court laid down a very clear list of factors that the courts must use to analyze out of state relocation requests in New Jersey.

The Factors that New Jersey Courts Must Use to Analyze Out of State Relocation Requests

The first issue that the court must decide when a custodial parent requests permission to move from New Jersey with the parties children is whether or not the parents have a “shared custody arrangement”  or “shared physical custody” of their children. A shared custody arrangement is an arrangement where both parents share, to a great extent, the responsibilities and duties, normally undertaken by the custodial parent. For example, where a child splits their time 50-50 in each parent’s household shared custody may be found.

If the parties have a shared custody arrangement than the court will view the custodial parent’s application to relocate as a change in custody application – which triggers an evaluation of whether the move would be in the “best interests of the child” .

If the parties do not have a shared custody arrangement then the court will view the custodial parent’s application to relocate as a removal application, which triggers an initial review and analysis of the following 2 factors:

1) Is there a good faith reason for the proposed move;

2) Is the proposed move inimical to (against) the child’s interests;

If the parent seeking to relocate can satisfy the court that their move is in good faith, and that the move is not against their child’s best interests, the burden of proof to halt the move swings to the parent who is opposing the move. The parent opposing the move has to put some credible evidence in front of the judge which shows that the proposed move is not in good faith, or that the move is against the best interests of the children. If the parent opposing the move has put sufficient evidence in front of the the judge a  hearing will be scheduled at which the following 12 factors will be analyzed.

1) What are the reasons given for the move;

2) What are the reasons given for the opposition to the move;

3) What is the past history of dealings between the parties insofar as it bears on the reasons advanced by both parties for supporting and opposing the move;

4) Will the child receive educational, health and leisure opportunities at least equal to what is available in New Jersey;

5) Are there any special needs or talents of the child;

6) Can a parenting time schedule and communication schedule be developed that will allow the non-custodial parent to maintain a full and continuous relationship with the child;

7) What is the likelihood that the custodial parent will continue to foster the child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent if the move is allowed;

8) What will be the effect of the move on extended family relationships in New Jersey, and in the new location;

9) If the child or children are of age, what are their individual preferences;

10) Is the child entering his or her senior year in high school – if yes, he or she should generally not be moved until graduation without his or her consent;

11) Does the non-custodial parent have the ability to relocate;

12) Any other factor bearing on the child’s interest.

The court will apply this 12 factor test to the facts and circumstances of the case, and it will make a decision on the custodial parent’s request to move out of state. It should be stressed that if the parent opposing the move fails to place sufficient evidence in front of the judge to warrant a hearing, the move will be approved without a full-blown Baures hearing.

If you have questions about how best to approach the relocation process in New Jersey feel free to contact me toll-free at 844-431-3380 or via e-mail using the contact form. I have been representing clients in family law related cases for over 20 years. My practice operates in northern New Jersey and includes representation in Bergen, Hudson, Passaic, Essex, Union and Middlesex counties. Whether you contact me via email or telephone your initial consultation is free of charge.

Relevant Case Facts

The Schulze case involved a dispute between divorced New Jersey parents as to where their child would reside post-divorce. The parties resided in Middlesex County during their marriage, and they had one child. When they divorced in 1998 their settlement agreement provided that they would share joint legal custody of their son, and the child’s mother would be the parent of primary residence. At the time of the divorce the parties were aware that the child’s father would be leaving New Jersey to further his education. They agreed on a parenting plan that covered his parenting time prior to his departure, and during his time out of state. They also agreed that upon his return to New Jersey the father’s parenting time with the child would be renegotiated. Their agreement further provided that if the parties could not amicably resolve the parenting time issue upon the fathers return that either party could apply to the Court to determine the parenting time schedule.

The father returned to New Jersey after completing his out of state training and settled back in Middlesex County. At the time of the fathers return to New Jersey the mother was working as a teacher in Middlesex County. When she was denied tenure at her teaching position she relocated to Sussex County. The father applied to the court requesting that the court order the mother to return to Middlesex County with the child. The judge ruled in favor of the mother and denied the father’s request to have the mother and child returned to Middlesex County. The father appealed the trial judge’s order. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial judge’s order denying the father’s request to have the mother and child returned to Middlesex County.

The Court’s Reasoning

The court found that a parent of primary residence who desires to move with their child or children, from one location within New Jersey to another, does not have to seek the other parent’s permission, or the court’s permission, prior to their move. However, the court also found that the relocation of a child by the parent of primary residence from one location in New Jersey to another may have a significant impact upon the relationship between the child and the non-residential custodial parent, and in those circumstances it may be necessary to modify the terms of the custodial and parenting-time arrangement.

Lessons From the Schulze Case

The lessons from the Schulze case are clear: (1) The parent of primary residence can move anywhere that they want to in the state of New Jersey without having to seek the other parent’s permission, or the court’s permission. Notification is required, but permission is not. With that said, the custodial parent who is anticipating a move should initiate discussions with the non-custodial parent regarding possible changes to the parenting time schedule in advance of their move. (2) The lesson for the noncustodial parent is that if they want their children to grow up in a certain proximity to where they live they should attempt to negotiate to have a geographic limitation placed on the other parent’s ability to move in their settlement agreement. While the noncustodial parent may not be able to force a limitation on the other parent a discussion of geographic limitations should nonetheless take place during settlement negotiations. One of my clients gave up a portion of his equity in the marital residence to ensure that the mother of his children would remain, with the children, in the house and school district where the parties had lived as husband and wife. The agreement was that if the mother remained in the house until the children graduated from high school she would then be able to sell the house and receive a disproportionate share of the sale proceeds. If she chose to relocate prior to the children’s graduation from high school then she would lose a significant portion of the sales proceeds from the house.

Feel free to contact my office if you have any questions about moving or relocating within the state of New Jersey, or if you have any other questions related to family law. You can contact me toll-free at 844-431-3380 or via email using the contact form. I have been representing families in northern New Jersey, including: Bergen, Hudson, Passaic, Essex, Union and Middlesex counties for over 20 years. Your initial consultation with me is free of charge.

One of the ticking time bombs that can explode after a divorce is finalized is the issue of unpaid or unfiled joint or individual taxes. If you and your spouse file joint taxes during the marriage and you have any concern that your spouse may have underreported their income, or that they may have any outstanding tax liabilities you should protect yourself in the settlement agreement with language which indemnifies you from any action brought by a taxing authority against you. This situation arises often times when one spouse owns a small business and their record-keeping, reporting, and payment has been sub-par. It also occurs when one spouse is in the habit of paying taxes on an installment basis during the course of the marriage. A similar situation arises when spouses file jointly and there is a joint tax obligation outstanding. A post-divorce tax audit can also lead to an assessment of penalties and interest. In all of these situations allocation has to be made as to who will pay the taxes (including any penalties and interest) to the taxing authorities.

Innocent Spouse Relief, Separation of Liability, and Equitable Relief – IRS Form 8857

In a situation where there has been an understatement or underpayment of tax and one spouse has been in charge of “handling” the taxes while the other spouse has merely been a signatory to a joint return, the innocent spouse may be able to use the innocent spouse rules promulgated by the IRS to shield them from any liability. Briefly stated, the IRS allows a spouse or ex-spouse who would otherwise be jointly liable for an understatement or underpayment of tax to shield themselves from the other spouses tax liabilities. A spouse seeking to protect themselves can claim that they are an innocent spouse if they are eligible under IRS rules. They can also request a separation of tax liability, where each spouse’s tax liability is calculated separate and apart from the other spouse’s. Finally, they may be entitled to equitable relief from the tax liability if they meet the IRS’ criteria. In order to be considered for any of the above three types of relief the taxpayer must file IRS Form 8857.

Business Tax Debt

Oftentimes a husband and wife own a business where one spouse runs the business on a day-to-day basis, and the other spouse is an officer, director or member (in the case of an LLC) in name only. The non-participant spouse was named in the incorporation papers as a formality, even though they have no real role in the business. Years go by, and the non-participant spouse and the spouse running the business day-to-day forget that the non-participant spouse is formally an officer of the business. If a divorce later takes place the non-participant spouse’s liability as an officer or director of the business has to be accounted for and addressed. If taxes are not paid on a timely basis the spouse who signed as an officer or director and then forgot about their formal connection to the business can still be dragged into any post-divorce mess if the participant spouse failed to pay taxes or file tax returns on a timely basis. These issues need to be sorted out and dealt with before the divorce is completed.

Indemnification Language

The importance of indemnification language in your settlement agreement cannot be overstated. Where there is the potential for a post-divorce tax obligation the indemnification language should be very clear as to which party will be responsible for paying any delinquent taxes (including interest and penalties). The agreement should also address indemnifying the innocent spouse from any expenses connected with unresolved or unpaid tax liabilities including indemnification for attorneys fees and other costs that may have to be incurred.

If you have questions about how divorce impacts joint and individual tax obligations of married couples contact me toll-free at 844-431-3380. You can also reach me using the email contact form. My law practice operates statewide in the state of New Jersey. I have been representing clients, primarily in the northern counties of New Jersey, including: Bergen, Hudson, Essex, Passaic, Union and Middlesex counties, for over 20 years. Whether your initial contact with me is via telephone or email the consultation is free of charge.

Has the Creditor First Sought Payment from the Spouse to Whom Services were Provided?

A creditor seeking to collect on a medical debt incurred by one spouse cannot initially pursue collection from both spouses (unless both spouses expressly agreed to be responsible for the debt). Under New Jersey case law the creditor has to first seek payment from the spouse to whom the medical services were provided. In order to seek payment of the debt from the other spouse the creditor has to show that after attempting to collect the debt from the spouse who received the medical services the debt remains unsatisfied because the income or assets of the spouse who received medical care were insufficient to satisfy the debt.

Does the Marriage Subsist?

Even if the creditor can demonstrate: (1) that they sought collection of the medical debt from the spouse who received services, and (2) that the recipient of the medical services could not satisfy the debt out of their income and assets, in order to pursue the debtors spouse the creditor still has to show that the recipient of medical services and their spouse are in a viable marriage – i.e., a marriage that subsists. As New Jersey case law shows not all marriages are considered viable.

National Account Systems, Inc. v. Mercado, 196 N.J. Super. 133 (1984)

In the National Account Systems case the husband entered the hospital for treatment while he was physically separated from but still married to the wife. He later died in the hospital, and his final medical bill was over $16,000. The hospital sought to collect the unpaid medical debt from his wife. The court analyzed the parties marital circumstances in order to determine whether there was a viable marriage. The court found that from the date of their initial separation until the husband’s passing the parties did not resume cohabitation. The court further found that during the four-year period of their separation the husband and wife made no support payments to each other. They had no written separation agreement, and neither party had commenced a divorce action prior to the husband’s death. Based on these findings the court held that because of the parties four-year separation, and more importantly due to their financial independence from one another, they were not a “financial unit”. The court reasoned that under the circumstances of the case the medical provider could not have reasonably assumed that the wife’s income or assets would be available for payment of the husband’s medical bill. The creditor’s court action against the wife to collect the medical debt was dismissed.

If you have questions about whether you may be liable for your spouses unpaid medical bills, or if you have any other family law related questions, do not hesitate to contact me toll-free at 844-431-3380 or via email using the contact form. I have been representing clients in family law matters in northern New Jersey for over 20 years. primarily in Bergen, Hudson, Passaic, Essex, Union and Middlesex counties. Whether you contact my office by telephone or email your initial consultation is free of charge.

Parental Incomes Above Child Support Guidelines Cut-Off

The New Jersey child support guidelines only cover situations where the parents combined net incomes are equal to or less than $3600 per week ($187,200 per year). It should be emphasized that the income cut off is a net income cut off, meaning an after-tax, after worksheet deduction, income. If the parents combined net incomes are $3600 per week or less the child support worksheet should be utilized. If the parents combined net incomes are more than $3600 per week the child support guidelines worksheet should be used to calculate the child support at the $3600 per week income number. The court can then fashion other appropriate support, on top of the basic guideline support, for any combined parental income above $3600 per week. It is this other appropriate support on top of the worksheet support that can be used to pay private school expenses. An example may help illustrate the concept.

If Parent A earns $150,000 per year and Parent B earns $180,000 per year, the parents combined gross income is $330,000 per year. Assuming that they pay 1/3rd of their incomes to taxes and other child support worksheet deductions ($110,000) their combined net income is $220,000 – above the $187,200 net income cut-off. These parents are above the child support guidelines. The guidelines support will be paid up to $3600 per week. The court can then use some portion of the $32,800 income above $187,200, ($220,000 – $187,200 = $32,800) to cover private school expenses and other reasonably requested child-related expenses.

Gifted or Special Needs Child

If parents have a gifted or special needs child the court will be more inclined to grant a request for both parents to contribute to the costs of private school (regardless of parental income) if the parent requesting contribution toward private school can show that the public schools do not offer the same or better educational opportunities as a private school. This is because the court’s paramount interest is the child’s best interest.

Change in Economic Circumstances

It should be noted that even if a parent agrees to contribute to private school costs their agreement to pay can be modified by the court if their financial circumstances deteriorate. For example, when the recession hit in 2008 it became very difficult for many parents to continue to pay for their children’s private school educations. As a consequence, numerous motions were filed in the aftermath of the recession requesting reductions or terminations of the obligation to contribute to private school payments. In the cases where there was sufficient proof of a substantial loss of income private school contribution was reduced or terminated.

Private School Provision in Consent Order/Settlement Agreement

If your case is settled via consent order or settlement agreement rather than after a hearing or trial it is important, if you want both parties to contribute to private school, that you have a provision in your agreement which specifically addresses private school, and how its costs will be allocated. An oral agreement will be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove and enforce in court.

If you have any questions about payment of private school expenses, or any other family law related issues, contact me toll-free at 844-431-3380 or via email using the blog contact form. I have been representing families in New Jersey for over 20 years. My practice operates statewide with a concentration in Bergen, Essex, Passaic, Hudson,Union, and Middlesex counties. Your initial consultation (by phone or email) is free of charge.

New Jersey Court Rule 5:3-7(a) Additional Remedies on Violation of Orders Relating To Parenting Time, Alimony, Support or Domestic Violence Restraining Orders

Rule 5:3-7(a) lists numerous sanctions which the court can impose on a parent who violates a custody or parenting time order. The possible sanctions include: compensatory time with the children; economic sanctions for costs incurred by the non-violator parent due to the other parent’s custody or parenting time violation; modification of the existing transportation (pick up/drop off arrangements) – including changing the exchange location to a public place; ordering counseling for either or both of the parties and/or the children at the expense of the violator; ordering a temporary or permanent modification of the parenting time and custodial arrangement if under the circumstances this relief is in the best interests of the children; ordering the violator to participate in a community service program; incarceration of the violator with or without work-release; issuance of a warrant to be executed if the violator persists in failing to comply with court orders; any other appropriate equitable remedy.

N.J.S.A. 2C:13-4(a) Interference with Custody (including parenting time)

If a parent takes or detains a child with the purpose or intent of concealing him or her from the other parent, and with the intent to deprive the other parent of custody or parenting time, the violator’s actions can be reported to the police as a crime under N.J.S.A. 2C:13-4(a). It should be noted that while, on its face, this statute seems to give a non-violating parent a powerful tool to hammer the violating parent with the full weight and authority of the criminal justice system, in reality a number of police forces are hesitant to get involved in family matters. While some police officers may get fully involved. others view interference with custody or parenting time as a non-priority, non-police matter, and will direct the complaining parent to file an action in Family Court.

Sanctions are Generally Reserved for Repeated Violations

It should also be noted that most courts only punish parents who persistently and willfully violate parenting time and custody orders. If a parent cannot comply with parenting time arrangements, despite their good faith efforts to do so, or if they are inadvertently late for a pickup or drop off, it would not be wise to immediately seek court sanctions under either the family law or criminal law statutes. Use of the statute sections is really for the situation where a parent is repeatedly, defiantly violating a court order. To properly prepare to bring an action in court under either of the previously listed statute sections the parent who’s parenting time is being consistently violated should keep a journal and a written record of the dates and times of the parenting time/custody violations. The journal should also document the non-violators attempts to communicate with the violator, via telephone, text or email (texts and e-mails are ideal as they are a written record of communications). This record will form the basis for the non-violator’s certification to the court explaining the nature of the violations and the need for sanctions.

If you have questions about how to deal with a situation where a parent is repeatedly violating the custody or parenting time arrangement, or if you have any other questions regarding family law related issues, do not hesitate to contact me toll-free at 844-431-3380, or via email using the contact form. I have been representing clients in northern New Jersey, including: Bergen, Passaic, Hudson, Essex, Union and Middlesex counties for over 20 years. Your initial consultation with me is free of charge.

Problems with Using the CIS to Determine the Marital Standard of Living

One problem with using the CIS to determine expenses for alimony calculations is that the CIS includes expenses which are child related. For example, if there are children of the marriage a portion of the shelter expenses are attributable to housing the children. If you have two children you will need a 2 or 3 bedroom residence, whereas if there are no children a 1 bedroom may be sufficient living space. When you have children all personal expenses listed on the CIS will be increased. Similarly, expenses listed on the CIS such as: school lunch, camps. children’s lessons, babysitting, daycare expenses, are 100% child-related. In order to avoid double dipping the child related CIS expenses should be removed from the CIS total as these expenses should be covered by child support not spousal support/alimony. The problem is that there is no clear cut way to separate these expenses, so in each case the expenses have to be scrutinized and broken down.

One of the more interesting questions is at what point in the marriage is the marital standard of living calculated? If the couple has gone through lean years for most of their marriage and then they have a recent burst of prosperity is the marital standard of living averaged out over the years? The simple answer is no. What the courts will do is examine the most recent years of the marriage. In a situation where a couple goes from lean years to prosperous years just before the divorce, the prosperous years will be used for the marital standard of living. Similarly, where a couple goes from years of high living to years of barely scraping by the most recent years will be used as the marital standard of living.

A somewhat similar question arises in the situation where the parties have separated but remain married. Is the marital standard of living the pre-separation standard of living or the post-separation standard of living? The answer to this question depends on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, e.g., were the parties sharing expenses post-separation or had each established an independent lifestyle of their own? Another question that comes up quite often is what if a couple lives far below their means? If their household income is $18,000 a month and they live at a $10,000 a month lifestyle their marital standard of living will be based on their lifestyle and expenses not on their income.

Recent Changes to Marital Standard of Living Inquiry

When Governor Christie signed legislation in August 2014 changing the alimony law in New Jersey probably the biggest change was in the new requirement that the supporting spouse’s standard of living be taken into account in determining the amount of alimony to be paid. Prior to the recent legislative changes the primary focus in an alimony inquiry was on the supported spouse’s post-divorce standard of living.  The new law requires that both parties standards of living be taken into equal consideration. While not an earth-moving change this dual focus will give supporting spouse’s more leverage than they had before in negotiating the amount of alimony to be paid.

If you have questions about how to determine your marital standard of living for alimony purposes give me a call toll-free at 844-431-3380, or contact me via email using the contact form. I have been representing clients in alimony cases in northern New Jersey for over 20 years. My client base is drawn primarily from Hudson, Essex, Bergen, Passaic, Union and Middlesex counties. Whether you contact me via email or telephone your initial consultation is free of charge.