3. How difficult is to obtain a reduction of alimony in the family court?
In this terrible economy more and more divorced men are finding it impossible to keep up with their alimony payments. Unfortunately, many divorced men are simply not aware that they may be able to reduce or even terminate their alimony because of their to their economic circumstances. This is no easy task at all. However, neither was defeating the Germans in World War II. Neither was it for the Red Sox to come back and beat the Yanks in 2004 after being down three games to none. Finally, it was not an easy Task for Frodo Baggins to obtain the ring and then throw it into the volcano in the epic Lord of the Rings adventures. Reducing or even terminating your alimony is a worthwhile goal, and under the right circumstances, and with hard work and some luck it could happen.
If you are someone who is no longer employed, or if you have experienced a loss of income then you could qualify. For example, if your hours at work have been reduced, and if you are racking up massive credit card debt to survive, then you may qualify for a reduction of your alimony payments. Nonetheless, it is important to emphasize that an alimony reduction motion is determined on a case by case basis. Moreover, you are required to demonstrate to the court that your loss of income or inability to find work constitutes a change of circumstances.
The bottom line is you should know your legal rights. Do not wait and do nothing until you are locked by a county sheriff on a bench warrant. The legal standard to reduce alimony is difficult to satisfy. However, alimony reduction motions are granted every day at your local county family court. The biggest mistake that a divorced man could make is to stop paying his alimony payment, and just hope that his problems disappear. Believe me they won’t. In summary, each and every motion to reduce  alimony rests upon its own merits and legal grounds. Moreover, a review of the appellate cases clearly indicate that the trial judges are given wide discretion to “make the call.†See also, Martindell v. Martindell, 21 N.J. 341, 355 (1956); see also Rolnick v. Rolnick, 262 N.J. Super. 343, 359 (App. Div. 1993)