Serving Mercer and Middlesex Counties, NJ and

the Surrounding Areas

Creative Dispute Resolution…Tough Litigation

google facebook twitter linkedin logo1 Strich Law Firm, P.C. | Attorneys At Law | Cranbury, NJ img_logo_bluebg_2x

Welcome to my blog

 

Here you can add some text to explain what your blog is about and a bit about you.

By Strich Law Firm, Aug 14 2017 05:52PM

Courts consider a wide array of factors in awarding alimony and equitably distributing the assets of parties in divorce cases. Often, a question arises about whether an asset should be used to determine alimony or whether it should be subject to equitable distribution—or both. Awarding a portion of an asset from the same source in alimony and in equitable distribution is referred to as “double dipping”. Interestingly, New Jersey law prevents double dipping only when the issue concerns pension or retirement benefits.

The rule preventing “double dipping” originated in the 1982 case of D’Oro v. D’Oro. In this case, the court ruled that a pension cannot be counted as “income” for the purposes of determining alimony if it has already been considered under equitable distribution. The court upheld this rule in the landmark case of Brown v. Brown in 1990. Here, the ex-wife of a retired naval officer claimed to be entitled to an equitable distribution of her ex-husband’s retirement pension. The Mississippi Supreme court rejected the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the distribution of such an asset constituted “double dipping”. The court agreed with the logic of D’Oro v. D’Oro, stating that it would be inequitable for the pension to be counted both as a share of equitable distribution and as a cash flow determination for alimony.

The case of Steneken v. Steneken in 2004 raised the issue of whether “double dipping” applied to the distribution of business-related assets. The defendant had appealed a court decision that gave his ex-wife both a share of his business and a monthly alimony based on his salary from the same business. However, the court argued that the present value of a business, based on its past earning, can be considered entirely separate from the earnings it would provide a shareholder in the future. In other words, a business can be both an asset for equitable distribution and a source of income used to determine alimony. The precedent allowing double dipping to occur in non-pension or retirement benefit cases continues to be upheld by New Jersey courts today.

Comments: Numerous courts around the country have since expanded the “double dipping” rule to protect business-related assets from being distributed twice. However, New Jersey courts continue to uphold that the “double dipping” rule applies only to pensions and retirement benefits. Whether or not this statute is unfair to business owners is widely disputed.

Call us at 609-924-2900 if you have a possible case or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.

Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm PC is in NJ and the comments relate to NJ only. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. and anyone viewing this site.

By Strich Law Firm, Oct 18 2016 03:29PM

After a 25 year marriage ended in divorce, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff $250 per week in permanent, non-modifiable alimony. However, the Defendant appealed the order enforcing the alimony and filed a cross-motion to reduce alimony due to his retirement brought on by illness (change of circumstances). The Defendant’s central argument is that he was entitled to relief pursuant to the language regarding retirement in the new alimony statue (9/11/14), stating “There shall be a rebuttable presumption that alimony shall terminate upon the obligor spouse or partner attaining full retirement age.”

The Judge determined that the Defendant’s income has steadily increased from approximately $51,000 to $108,000 since the divorce, and that the Defendant’s argument is misguided. The parties made clear in their agreement that the agreed upon $250 per week would continue permanently, regardless of Defendant’s loss of employment “for whatever reason.”

Comment: Not only does the 2014 Alimony Statute provide for no retroactive relief on existing agreements, this Judgment of Divorce specifically provided for non-modifiable alimony, regardless of any change of circumstances. Non-modification provisions are usually upheld. It is noted that the Defendant enjoyed the benefit of the non-modification language during the time his income doubled, but then wanted relief when his income decreased. Generally, I do not recommend non-modifiable alimony.

Call us with questions on your case at 609-924-2900 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.

Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. and anyone viewing this site.

RSS Feed

Web feed

meeting