Job Change

In a Decision –  DeChiara v. DeChiara,,  (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

​

The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court determination that a party

who lost a job may need to continue to look for a job.
Read more . . .

In a Decision –     Chaffee v. Cianciara,,  (an Unpublished Opinion) >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division accepted the granting of Husband’s request for reduction in his alimony obligation after being laid off, applied retroactively to the date Husband secured a new, lesser-paying job, and granting Husband's motion for a credit for the alimony he overpaid prior to the reduction.
Read more . . .

In a Decision –  Keller v Keller (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division determined that and ‘In-House’ Attorney who had his Income Halved should have had his Alimony Reduced.

Husband had been employed by Lucent as General Counsel with an average salary of  $582,000.00. Husband then obtained full time employment with Pfizer earning a base salary of $250,000 and a target bonus of 25% . Husband contended that the permanent and substantial decrease in his income was involuntary and constituted changed circumstances.
Read more . . .

In a  Decision – Taylor v. Jones  (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate  Division determined that the job category used for imputing income to Father was based on his past employment history

In a  Decision – Dressner v. Dressner  (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The statute prohibits the retroactive modification of a child support obligation to a date prior to the mailing of the notice of motion for such modification. Further, retroactivity is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.

Following termination from his employment and efforts to obtain comparable employment, the Court  terminated his alimony obligation as of the date of the order and modified the amount of child support in accordance with the child support guidelines. Even though the notice was mailed 19 months prior to the order, the family part court did not violate the statutory provisions by failing to order the obligation modified retroactively nor was there any abuse of discretion in such decision

In a  Decision – Awadallah v. Awadallah (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division determined that no changed circumstances existed where 2 months after the Divorce, he changed careers, moving from a salary of $40,000 a year to a 100% commission-based job. 

The motion judge reasonably found that the circumstances surrounding defendant's decrease in income was voluntary, temporary and too recent to establish change of circumstances.