A Tour Through the Law of Alimony When an Alimony Obligor Retires | NJ Appellate Law Blog – NJ Appellate Lawyer Bruce D. Greenberg blogs about Appeals and Appellate Law Practice

Voynick v. Voynick, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The start of Judge Bergman’s opinion in this case today offered a good summary of the issues in this Family Part appeal. “In this appeal, we address the legal standards to be applied by a reviewing court concerning applications for termination or modification of permanent alimony under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3) based on the retirement of an obligor when the judgment or order establishing the alimony obligation was entered prior to the 2014 amendment of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.”

More particularly, the issue was how an alimony obligor can show changed circumstances upon the obligor’s retirement that would justify termination or modification of permanent alimony. “Based on the language in subsection (j)(3), after an obligor has shown they have reached a ‘good faith retirement age,’ the obligor can show changed circumstances “through proof of a decrease in an obligor's financial circumstances due to their retirement affecting their continuing ability to pay alimony at the level set forth in the current judgment or order,” the “typical method” for a changed circumstances argument in the retirement context.

To get to the end of the story first, today’s opinion also made an obligee’s financial situation relevant to changed circumstances under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. “a prima facie change of circumstance can also be shown by an obligee’s financial disclosure or other evidence in the record exhibiting: (1) an obligee has adequately saved for retirement and no longer has a continuing need for alimony as set forth in the order or judgment to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage; or (2) an obligee had the ability to adequately save for retirement after the final judgment of divorce and, if they had done so, would no longer have a continuing need for alimony as set forth in the order or judgment to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.”

On his way to that holding, Judge Bergman addressed a number of other issues under the amended statute. As a result, his opinion is well worth reading in full, especially for those involved with Family Part alimony matters.

The bottom line was that the ruling of the Family Part that held that defendant had not sufficiently prove changed circumstances was reversed and the matter was remanded for further discovery and a hearing. “At the hearing, the burden remains on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a modification or termination of alimony is warranted under the requirements and factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3) that: (1) plaintiff has adequately saved for retirement and no longer has a continuing need for alimony at its current level in order to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, or (2) plaintiff had the ability to adequately save for retirement, and if she had done so, would no longer have a continuing need for alimony, or the currently ordered amount of alimony set forth in the FJD in order to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.”

"Hot Fun in the Summertime": Appellate Division Summer Parts

In an Order available here, Chief Justice Rabner announced the lineup for the Appellate Division's summer Parts. As has been customary, the "summer" runs not between the meteorological start and end dates for summer, nor from Memorial Day to Labor Day, but from June 16 through September 7....

The Supreme Court Confirms That Municipalities Can be Subjected to Sanctions for Frivolous Litigation

Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Trautner, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This appeal presented the question of whether municipalities can be liable to pay sanctions for frivolous litigation, under the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 ("the FLS"). In a 5-0 opinion written by Justice Fasciale (Chief Justice Rabner and Justice Hoffman did not participate), the Court affirmed, as modified, the decision of the Appellate Division that upheld the Law Division's imposition of FLS sanctions against the Borough....

The "Castle Doctrine"

State v. Bragg, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). A jury found defendant guilty of twelve charged counts, including attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, terroristic threats, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, endangering, and two lesser-included offenses of harassment. Some of those charges involved the use of deadly force. Persons may not use deadly force if the can retreat with complete safety. But under the "castle doctrine," an exception to the general rule, a person "is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor." N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(b)(2)(b)(i). That doctrine derives from the common law....

No Arbitrariness in Rejection of Public Construction Bid That Failed to Include a Properly Signed, Required Consent of Surety

In the Matter of Protest Filed by El Sol Contracting and Construction Corp., Contract T100.638, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This public bidding case resulted in a 5-2 split at the Supreme Court, the first non-unanimous ruling of the current Term. Justice Hoffman wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Fasciale authored the dissent for himself and Justice Pierre-Louis....