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.”