New Jersey Alimony Enforcement Attorneys
If your ex-spouse is not following the terms in your alimony agreement, then yes, your alimony can be enforced. Just like with child support enforcement, if your ex-spouse fails to make the payments to you, then the alimony agreement is eligible for enforcement. A Notice of Motion will need to be filed with the court in order to begin the enforcement of the alimony agreement. The Law Offices of Jef Henninger, Esq., represent clients throughout the state of New Jersey and will tenaciously fight for your rights to alimony. Our exceptional, knowledgeable alimony enforcement lawyers will fight for payments to be made on time from now on and for all financial loss from lack of paying alimony payments to be paid in full. Our law firm also represents clients who may be accused of not paying alimony and may be looking at seizure of assets and wage garnishments. No matter the situation, call our offices today with our free initial consultation at 732-773-2768 to go over the specifics of your unique alimony case and to see what our Middlesex County alimony lawyers can do for you.
New Jersey Alimony Modification Lawyers
Yes, your alimony can be modified as a divorce post-judgment. Some examples of where you could be eligible for alimony modification is a company you own failing, increase in the costs of living, dramatic change income or becoming disabled where it affects employment. Once modification or termination of alimony is pursued, you will need to be able to prove a substantial financial change. This is where having a seasoned, experienced New Jersey alimony modification attorney is essential. Don’t settle for sub par legal representation and risk the possible financial strain. If you are seeking alimony modification or your ex-spouse is trying to file for alimony modification, the Law Offices of Jef Henninger, Esq., will tenaciously fight for you. Our highly skilled alimony modification attorneys will analyze all possible legal options and will be aggressive in fighting for a positive result. Contact one of our law offices and speak with our New Brunswick alimony attorneys for a free initial consultation at 732-773-2768.
New Jersey Contested Divorce Lawyers
A New Jersey contested divorce makes any agreements or settlements seem time-consuming and maybe even impossible. When dealing with child custody, a schedule of parenting time as well as prime custody of the child needs to be establish. This should always be done with the child’s best interest in mind. While the child’s best interest may be viewed differently by each parent, an agreement needs to be reached in order to move forward with the divorce. If the child custody becomes more complex, there may be a need to have a mental health expert evaluate the situation. Alimony, distribution of any assets or liabilities and child support must also be delegated and distributed fairly amongst both parties. Child support must follow under the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines. With the various alimony and child support laws that one would need to consider, having a battle-tested, experienced New Jersey contested divorce lawyer is a good idea.
At the Law Offices of Jef Henninger, Esq., our team of aggressive New Jersey contested divorce attorneys will look at all facets of the contested divorce process and will utilize or vast knowledge in New Jersey divorce law to fight for your needs and protect your rights. If you are looking for top notch legal representation to help you through your divorce, call our law firm today and talk with one of our Bergen County divorce attorneys with our free initial consultation at 732-773-2768.
New Jersey Alimony Lawyers
If you are looking to receive money from your spouse either during and/or after a divorce, then you are looking for alimony. Alimony, also known as spousal maintenance or support, is calculated using a variety of formulas and is usually put into play to help eliminate any unfair economic strain that would arise from the divorce. Alimony also tries to have both parties live comparably to the lifestyle they had while they were married. Otherwise, the divorce can leave one of the parties with a huge financial disadvantage. In order to properly calculate alimony, there are numerous factors that are analyzed like income, age, education of you and your spouse, parental responsibilities to any children and length of marriage, just to name a few.
Regardless of the factors, you should hire a seasoned New Jersey alimony attorney to make sure all financial needs are met. At the Law Offices of Jef Henninger, Esq., our team of professional, tenacious alimony attorneys can see if you are eligible for alimony, and if so, fight aggressively for your financial goals. Speak with one of our Paterson family law attorneys with our free initial consultation at 732-773-2768.
New Jersey Alimony Attorneys
Since there are many different circumstances regarding a divorce case, the same goes for the types of alimony that one may be eligible for. With the numerous kinds of alimony that one can file for, you need to make sure the type of alimony you do request is the best one for your unique situation. For instance, a permanent alimony is usually best for long-term marriages and is as the name says, permanent usually after the divorce is settled. But there is also a pendente lite alimony, which is a temporary financial award that is usually handled during the divorce process. As you may have noticed, some alimony types are for during the divorce case and some are for after. Because of this, you can even combine alimony types to make sure you are supported financially during this tough time.
With the various types of alimony, all not being mentioned here, it is critical to have a seasoned New Jersey alimony lawyer on your side. The Law Offices of Jef Henninger, Esq., has a team of lawyers with divorce and family law experience, and will fight to secure your financial future. Contact our Monmouth County law firm for a free initial consultation at 732-773-2768.
In New Jersey, courts have moved away from permanent alimony. However, with much longer marriages, permanent alimony is still available.
An understanding of the purpose of permanent alimony lends further insight into the proper use and application of limited duration alimony. The most commonly expressed rationale for permanent alimony is:
1. To compensate for benefits conferred on the other spouse by being responsible for homemaking and child rearing. The primary benefit is increased earning capacity of the other spouse who, while enjoying family life, was free to devote all productive time to income production.
2. To compensate for the opportunity costs of homemaking. This is primarily lost earning capacity through the years of major responsibility for the home, either not being employed or holding employment subject to the needs of the family. Courts recognize this opportunity cost when they refer to the fact that the claimant for alimony had remained in the home in the traditional role of full-time homemaker. There is, also, a cost in lessened opportunity for remarriage which is greater for women than men and which increases the longer the marriage lasts.
In short, “a transfer of earning power” occurs during a traditional marriage in which the homemaker spouse’s efforts increased the other’s earning capacity at the expense of her own. Alimony is an award formulated to compensate for that transfer by sufficiently (fairly) meeting reasonable needs for support not otherwise met by property division and personal income.
[Krauskopf, Rehabilitative Alimony, at 583-84 (footnotes omitted).]
If you have a New Jersey divorce case that involves a permanent alimony issue, call the team of aggressive Monmouth County alimony lawyers today to discuss your case.
In Cox v. Cox, the Appellate Divison extensively discussed the legislative amendment that added limited duration alimony as an option:
Limited duration alimony is not intended to facilitate the earning capacity of a dependant spouse or to make a sacrificing spouse whole, but rather to address those circumstances where an economic need for alimony is established, but the marriage was of short-term duration such that permanent alimony is not appropriate. Those circumstances stand in sharp contrast to marriages of long duration where economic need is also demonstrated. In the former instance, limited duration alimony provides an equitable and proper remedy. In the latter circumstances, permanent alimony is appropriate and an award of limited duration alimony is clearly circumscribed, both by equitable considerations and by statute.
[335 N.J. Super. at 476.]
Limited duration alimony is thus awarded in recognition of a dependent spouse’s contributions to a relatively short-term marriage that demonstrated attributes of a “marital partnership.” Id. at 483. Both limited duration and permanent alimony reflect the policy that marriage is an economic and social partnership and that the financial and non-financial contributions of both spouses should be recognized. Id. at 479. “All other statutory factors being in equipoise, the duration of the marriage marks the defining distinction between whether permanent or limited duration alimony is warranted and awarded.” Id. at 483.
In recognizing the need for limited duration alimony, the Legislature focused “‘upon the economic impact of the marriage on the parties by examining whether employment opportunities were lost or career opportunities delayed.'” Id. at 481 (quoting Report of the Commission to Study the Law of Divorce, Recommendation 13 at 46-47 (April 18, 1995)). It was contemplated that a court would determine whether
“any economic dependency that might exist between the parties was created by the marriage or was the product of the parties’ disparate skills and educational opportunities, unrelated to anything that happened during the marriage. The court’s inquiry would focus not on the fact that the parties were married but upon the impact of the marriage on the parties . . . . [and on] whether either of the parties were economically disadvantaged by child-rearing responsibilities for children of the marriage.”
[Ibid. (quoting Report of the Commission, supra, Recommendation 13 at 46-47).]
The Divorce Study Commission found that limited duration alimony was not intended to be a replacement for permanent alimony “‘where the length of the marriage and the contributions made by the dependent spouse are significant. In particular, it is singularly inappropriate in long marriages.'” Id. at 482 (quoting Report of the Commission, supra, Recommendation 13 at 47 (footnote omitted)). The Commission was of the “unequivocal view” that limited duration alimony “should be limited to shorter marriages and not be ordered in long-term marriages.” Ibid.
In Gordon v. Rozenwald, 380 N.J. Super. 55, 61 (App. Div. 2005), this court had the opportunity to consider the purpose of limited duration or term alimony in the context of a motion to modify the term alimony provision of a negotiated matrimonial agreement. The parties had been married fifteen years at the time of the final separation and had two children. Id. at 61-62. At the time of divorce, the agreement negotiated by the parties contained a fifteen-year term alimony provision. Id. at 62. During the marriage, the husband was financially successful and the wife did not work. Ibid. Following dissolution of the marriage, the husband’s earnings soared. Id. at 63. Although the wife worked, the earnings of the parties were grossly disparate. Ibid.
We observed that “[l]imited duration alimony is available to a dependent spouse who made ‘contributions to a relatively short-term marriage that . . . demonstrated the attributes of a marital partnership’ and has the skills and education necessary to return to the workforce.” Id. at 65-66 (quoting Cox, supra, 335 N.J. Super. at 483. We noted that such a spouse is not entitled to permanent alimony because the commitment to the marital enterprise was not sustained and the period of economic dependency was not prolonged. Ibid. We also commented that
[t]he premise for a term of limited duration alimony under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23c is primarily historical not predictive and it is not based upon estimates about financial circumstances at the time of termination. Thus, the end date of a term of limited duration alimony is the equivalent of an arrangement to terminate support at a predetermined time or event, regardless of need.
[Id. at 68.]
In Cox, supra, we held that limited duration alimony was not appropriate following a twenty-two year marriage. 335 N.J. Super. at 469-70. There, the wife was employed during the marriage and eventually enrolled in law school, passed the bar, and obtained a position as an associate in a law firm. Id. at 470. The husband earned substantially more than his wife throughout the marriage. Ibid.
In the course of this opinion, we sought to distinguish the four forms of alimony authorized by the Legislature: permanent alimony, limited duration alimony, reimbursement alimony, and rehabilitative alimony. Id. at 476. As to limited duration alimony, we said:
Limited duration alimony is not intended to facilitate the earning capacity of a dependent spouse or to make a sacrificing spouse whole, but rather to address those circumstances where an economic need for alimony is established, but the marriage was of short-term duration such that permanent alimony is not appropriate. Those circumstances stand in sharp contrast to marriages of long duration where economic need is also demonstrated. In the former instance, limited duration alimony provides an equitable and proper remedy. In the latter circumstances, permanent alimony is appropriate and an award of limited duration alimony is clearly circumscribed, both by equitable considerations and by statute.
We also instructed trial judges to consider the underlying policy considerations that distinguish the forms of alimony when the judge must fashion an appropriate alimony award. Id. at 479. We concluded saying that “[p]ermanent and limited duration alimony, by contrast, reflect the important policy of recognizing that marriage is an adaptive economic and social partnership, and an award of either validates that principle.” Ibid. Limited duration alimony provides flexibility for those situations when no alimony or permanent alimony would be unjust. Id. at 480.
The “defining distinction” between permanent and limited duration alimony is the length of the marriage. Id. at 483. Here, the judge referred to various periods that the parties were together, ranging from slightly more than seven years (from date of marriage to date of separation) to ten and one-half years (from date of cohabitation to date of filing of complaint). The judge correctly referred to the marriage as one of neither long nor short duration, although the term is decidedly closer to being considered one of short duration. See Hughes v. Hughes, 311 N.J. Super. 15, 31 (App. Div. 1998) (ten-year marital relationship cannot be considered short-term by today’s standards). We also agree that a marriage of intermediate duration may justify alimony particularly when one of the spouses was financially dependent on the other spouse for all or a substantial part of the marriage. Id. at 33. Financial dependency, however, does not dictate an award of permanent alimony in all instances.
Both permanent and limited duration alimony serve the same goals and are designed to enable the supported spouse to maintain a lifestyle reasonably comparable to the one enjoyed while the family was intact. Steneken, supra, 183 N.J. at 298-99. In the case of limited duration alimony, however, the court makes a determination, based primarily on the length of the parties’ marriage and the spouses need for support. It is not based on predictions of financial circumstances at the time of termination. Gordon, supra, 380 N.J. Super. at 68.
The decision to award permanent rather than limited term alimony in this case seems to have been predicated on plaintiff’s inability to ever earn enough income to maintain the marital lifestyle on her own. In certain situations this is appropriate. See Robertson v. Robertson, 381 N.J. Super. 199, 207-08 (App. Div. 2005) (thirty-nine year old woman who surrendered employment opportunities entitled to permanent alimony after twelve-year marriage); McGee v. McGee, 277 N.J. Super. 1, 14-15 (App. Div. 1994) (fifty-seven year old unskilled and unemployed woman entitled to permanent alimony after relatively short-term marriage but economic dependence commencing prior to the marriage). This factor, however, is relevant only in the determination of the length of the limited duration alimony. In fact, to treat the time needed for the recipient to improve her earning capacity as anything other than a factor to determine the appropriate term of the alimony award, obscures the difference between rehabilitative and limited duration alimony. Cox, supra, 335 N.J. Super. at 481. In this particular case, because of defendant’s very high earnings and the comfortable lifestyle the parties enjoyed, the judge’s assessment that plaintiff will probably never be able to achieve that lifestyle on her own is undoubtedly correct. Given the unique facts of this case, however, a permanent alimony award is not appropriate.
If you are looking to get limited duration alimony in your NJ divorce case, call the team of tough, smart Ocean County Alimony Lawyers today to discuss your case.
In Cox v. Cox, the New Jersey Appellate Division explained reimbursement alimony in New Jersey as follows:
Reimbursement alimony has previously been characterized as “not truly support but an equitable creation designed to eliminate injustice.” Louis, Limited Duration Alimony, supra, at 137. See Mahoney, supra, 91 N.J. at 500-01, 503 & n.5. It is intended to compensate a spouse who has made financial sacrifices resulting in a reduced standard of living by enabling the other spouse to forego gainful employment while securing an advanced degree or professional license to enhance the parties’ future standard of living. Id. at 500-01; N.J.S.A.Reimbursement alimony is thus limited to “monetary contributions made with the mutual and shared expectation that both parties to the marriage will derive increased income and material benefits.” Mahoney, supra, 91 N.J. at 502-03. See also Reiss v. Reiss, 200 N.J. Super. 122, 125 (Ch. Div. 1984), aff’d, 205 N.J. Super. 41 (App. Div. 1985) (questioning whether reimbursement alimony is truly alimony as it based primarily on past contributions rather than future needs). As in the case of rehabilitative alimony, reimbursement alimony may be awarded separately or in combination with any other form of alimony. N.J.S.A. 24:34-23f.
If you have an alimony issue in New Jersey, call the Middlesex County Alimony Lawyers today to discuss your case.
In Cox v. Cox, the New Jersey Appellate Division explained rehabilitative alimony in New Jersey:
Rehabilitative alimony permits a short-term award “from one party in a divorce [to] enable [the] former spouse to complete the preparation necessary for economic self-sufficiency,” Hill v. Hill, 91 N.J. 506, 509 (1982); Milner v. Milner, 288 N.J. Super. 209, 213-14 (App. Div. 1996), “and ceas[es] when the dependent spouse is in a position of self-support,” Hughes v. Hughes, 311 N.J. Super. 15, 31 (App. Div. 1998). Rehabilitative alimony thus represents an appropriate remedy where, for example, “a spouse who gave up or postponed her own education to support the household requires a lump sum or a short-term award to achieve economic self-sufficiency.” Mahoney, supra, 91 N.J. at 504. Its purpose is to “enhance and improve the earning capacity of the economically dependant spouse.” Frank Louis, Limited Duration Alimony, 11 N.J. Fam. Law. 133, 135 (1991). The focus of rehabilitative alimony is upon the ability of a dependant spouse to engage in gainful employment, combined with the length of the marriage, the age of the parties, Heinl, supra, 287 N.J. Super. at 346-48, and the spouse’s ability to regain a place in the workplace, Cerminara v. Cerminara, 286 N.J. Super. 448, 460 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 144 N.J. 376 (1996). It is not to be considered an exclusive remedy, as “[r]ehabilitative alimony in addition to permanent alimony is favored, where appropriate.” Hughes, supra, 311 N.J. Super. at 32.