In Landers v. Landers, 444 N.J.Super 315 (App.Div.2016), the court considered the application of the revised alimony statute which went into effect in 2014.
The parties had been married for 22 years. A Final Judgment of Divorce (FJOD) was entered in 1991. The defendant/ex-husband had been ordered to pay ‘unallocated’ support for the plaintiff and children. Unallocated simply means that the support was not specifically designated for alimony or child support. However, by 2001, the defendant’s obligation was $1000 a month and the children were emancipated. The remaining amount was presumptively alimony.
At age 66 the defendant filed a motion to terminate support after having paid for 24 years. He outlined his medical conditions and incomes. He asked for the support to be terminated. The plaintiff responded and noted her medical conditions and minimal income.
Plaintiff also took the position that because the FJOD was entered prior to the effective date of the new alimony statute, that the provisions in the new statute did not apply to their situation, and that her alimony was not modifiable. The trial court rejected these arguments and entered an order terminating the defendant’s alimony.
On appeal, the court noted that a good faith retirement is a long-time and well-recognized change of economic circumstances, which warrants, at a minimum, a review of the parties’ financial situation. In the 1993 Silvan case, the court identified factors to be considered in analyzing whether retirement justifies alimony modification. However, it is generally accepted that a good faith retirement at social security retirement age constitutes a change of circumstances warranting a modification or termination of alimony.
The 2014 amendments to the alimony statute, merely codified many of these factors and this established legal principle. The court cited the statute N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. The statute has two distinct provisions. First, there is a provision that specifically addresses cases for agreements or judgments entered after the effective date of the act. Second, there is a specific provision addressing agreements or judgments entered before the effective date of the act. In this case, the trial court applied the statute for cases entered after the effective date and that was an error.
The difference essentially being that for orders entered after the effective date, there is a rebuttable presumption that alimony will termination at full retirement age. That means that if you reach full social security retirement age there will be no more alimony paid. If the agreement was entered before, then the court has to review the financial circumstances of the parties. While the ultimate outcome may be the same, it is important to note that a payor can retire and simply stop paying alimony under the first and the recipient would need to go to court to continue the alimony. Whereas under the second standard, the payor needs to affirmatively seek an order terminating alimony.
Either way this case and the statutory amendments greatly shifted the landscape of retirement and its impact on alimony. If you have an agreement or FJOD ordering you to pay alimony and you are nearing retirement, please contact our office to discuss what your obligations are. If you are the recipient of alimony and your former spouse is nearing retirement age, contact us to review your case to see if a continuation of alimony is appropriate.