As a result of these financial setbacks, the plaintiff then filed a second post-judgment application seeking to terminate his obligation to make alimony payments. At the time of the application, the plaintiff was unemployed and he was spending down his assets to pay his alimony and living expenses. A review of plaintiff’s 2007 Case Information Statement (CIS) reflects that plaintiff’s monthly household expenses total $17,045, exclusive of the alimony payments. These expenses include a mortgage payment of about $3,600 a month on a $1.1 million home in California, lease payments for two Mercedes Benz vehicles for plaintiff and his second wife, debt service of $3,918 per month, and expenses for his second wife’s grandchild. The court noted that the plaintiff’s expenses are in stark contrast to defendant’s living expenses of only $3,364 per month. The plaintiff’s 2007 CIS indicates that his net assets are valued at $265,200, and this includes his share of the equity in his home.
Ultimately, the family court denied the plaintiff’s application to terminate his alimony payments.The family court ruled that the plaintiff  make a prima facie showing of a change in circumstances. The court found that in fact, that the plaintiff’s income had increased from 2000 to 2006. In 2000, Plaintiff had been unemployed, while in 2006, Plaintiff earned $80,949 gross, according to his own 1040. Accordingly, the court found that no plenary hearing was necessary.
The family court further held that the plaintiff was voluntarily and temporarily underemployed. Finally, the family noted that the plaintiff’s CIS proved that he was still living a luxurious life. His CIS revealed that he paid for leases on luxury cars, a mortgage on a luxury home, and childcare for the grandson of his new wife, and his extravagant monthly budget in excess of $17,000. Thereafter, the desperate Mr. Ennico appealed. The case was affirmed. The Appellate Division held that the plaintiff’s application had not merit. The court noted that the plaintiff’s unemployment was only temporary and that he continued to live a lavish lifestyle.
In summary, many similar motions just like Mr. Ennico’s motion are on the docket, or will soon be in the coming years. Wall Street has been wiped out and many traders who have enjoyed lavish lifestyles have been cut down to size by the mini-depression. In any of these type of cases, the parties will have to focus on the expenses as delineated in their CIS. Great care must be spent reviewing and analyzing the CIS statements. According to the Ennico case if the payor spouse’s lifestyle does not suffer as a result of the loss of income, then the motion to reduce alimony has no merit and it will likely be denied. In short, the court is saying that you can’t get equitable relief unless you truly deserve it. You can’t have your alimony reduced if you still have a Mercedes and if you live in a multi-million dollar home. Therefore, if a web-surfer has a similar type of scenario, then you must make sure that your lifestyle and the items as listed in your CIS “jive†with the story that you are trying to sell to the court. If it does not, then your motion for an alimony reduction will go no where.
33. I made a terrible divorce deal and I have to pay my ex-spouse $300 per week in alimony. I have only been divorced for nine months. I have just lost my job and I can’t afford to pay such a high alimony payment any more. Even though I have only been divorced for a short time,  can I still file a Lepis motion to reduce my alimony?
Continue Reading