Richard Allan Nocks, Esq., is a New Jersey attorney committed to representing clients in Family Law cases. Focusing on Divorce, Post-Divorce, and all other aspects of Domestic Relations, we use our expertise and skills to fully meet our clients’ unique needs and concerns.
Alimony cases in the State of New Jersey
In what could affect thousands of alimony cases in the State of New Jersey, Richard A. Nocks has filed an appeal with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in a post-judgment matrimonial matter. On behalf of an ex-husband who has been paying alimony for 13 years, Mr. Nocks has appealed certain provisions of a lower court order denying the ex-husband’s motion to terminate or significantly reduce alimony payments to the ex-wife. (Platt v. Platt, A-4767-16T2).
Earlier this year, the lower court issued a tentative decision which denied without prejudice the ex-husband’s motion to terminate or reduce his alimony obligation. The ex-husband contends on appeal that the motion judge erred and abused his discretion in his decision to deny the motion. The ex-husband essentially argued in the appeal that the lower court failed to appreciate the ex-wife’s highly improved financial picture in the years since the divorce. In support of his appeal, the ex-husband pointed out the ex-wife’s meteoric increase in earned income she began to receive after the divorce as a highly specialized nurse. He argued that this increase in earnings and income now allows her to not only maintain the former marital lifestyle all on her own, but has actually enabled her to greatly improve her lifestyle since the divorce. Relying on prior cases that focus solely on the recipient’s “need” for alimony, as opposed to the payer’s “ability to pay” the alimony, the ex-husband argued that the alimony is no longer necessary and that the ex-wife no longer needs it, thanks to her own improved financial picture and her self-sustaining income. The appeal especially pointed out that the ex-wife’s earnings now surpasses the amount of alimony being paid, so there is absolutely no longer a need for the alimony.
The ex-husband also argued in the appeal that the lower court judge did not fully appreciate a significant inheritance given to the ex-wife that she used to pay off her mortgage, did not consider unearned interest income that inheritance was generating, failed to understand that the ex-wife’s current adjusted gross income now exceeds the ex-husband’s current adjusted gross income, erroneously added in the ex-husband’s current wife’s income when it has no relationship to the parties’ marital lifestyle, refused to engage in any discernable analysis of the ex-wife’s original and updated Case Information Statements even though the lower court judge had previously ordered them to be filed, made unsupported assumptions about the ex-wife’s stellar rise in income since the divorce even though the ex-wife did not submit to the court any prior years’ tax returns whatsoever to support those assumptions, and refused to appreciate the ex-wife’s completely debt-free lifestyle.
The ex-husband further argued on appeal that the motion judge did not value the ex-wife’s significant change for the better in her financial circumstances, and that the lower court judge made his decision without analyzing the totality of the circumstances. The ex-husband argued that the motion judge declined to expressively analyze the defendant’s updated financial picture which he had previously ordered her to produce.
Appeals can take quite a long time to decide. Mr. Nocks and his client expect a decision by the spring or summer of 2018. Stay tuned…
