Probably not, your chances to reduce your alimony are not that great. The ink on your divorce decree has barely dried. The major problem with motion is that you will not be able to prove that your job loss is a permanent one. An illustrative case is Ashwood v. Klenart, Docket No. A-6363-06T3. Here, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to terminate his permanent alimony. His major argument to the family court was that he suffered a change of circumstances because his business collapsed since the date of the divorce.
Here, the defendant and plaintiff, Janet Ashwood, formerly known as Janet Klenert, were married on April 14, 1973. After a 29 year marriage the parties got a divorce. The family court judge ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff $3,000 per month in permanent alimony. Only after two months after the JOD was entered, the defendant then filed his first motion to terminate his alimony. In his first motion, he maintained that his monthly income had plummeted because he had been laid off from his employment. In November 2006, the family court denied the defendant’s motion to terminate his alimony. The court concluded that the defendant’s reduction in income had lasted for only a few months, and it was was premature to consider a serious motion to terminate alimony so soon.
Only a mere four months later, on March 23, 2007, the defendant filed his second motion to terminate his alimony. The motion was once again denied again by the family court. Thereafter, the defendant appealed. On appeal, the Appellate Division held that it believed  defendant’s good faith effort to find employment. However, the court noted that Mr. Klenart’s motion was filed too quickly. The court cited the case of Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17 (App. Div. 2006). In the Larbig case, the Appellate Division upheld a motion judge’s ruling to deny an alimony reduction motion on the grounds “a mere twenty months after the parties’ execution†of a property settlement agreement.†In Larbig, the family court concluded, and the Appellate Division affirmed, that the defendant-movant had failed to demonstrate the change in circumstances was anything other than temporary.
In summary, in the Ashwood case the Appellate Division held that  filing two motions to terminate alimony within a mere nine months of the entry of the JOD was an insufficient period of time in which to conclude that the reduction in defendant’s income was anything other than a temporary one.The defendant’s extreme remedy to terminate his alimony obligation, in two motions filed only months apart, was unwarranted. Therefore, the defendant’s loss of employment had not lasted long enough to justify the conclusion that his loss of income as only temporary.
The Ashwood case is important. This case illustrates that a payor’s change of circumstances must be a permanent one and not only temporary. This case illustrates that a reasonable period of time must pass after the JOD to go back to court and to challenge alimony. In this case, the payor’s best chance for some type of relief is to focus on his ability to pay alimony. He may be able to get some relief on these grounds. Many of my clients are obsessed with trying to reduce or terminate alimony. Having alimony reduced/terminated is often more involved and time consuming the the original divorce case. It is not uncommon for a payor to file a motion for alimony/termination on a periodic yearly basis. Many alimony payors believe that sooner or later they will catch a break, or get another judge who will see their case in a different light. In light of these circumstances, if possible I always advise my clients who receive alimony, to explore a buy of their alimony if possible. It is better to get your money up front, then having to possibly deal with endless motions to terminate/reduce alimony.
Continue Reading