JON WORMAN

Following three-plus years of lobbying and negotiation by grassroots alimony reform organizations, the New Jersey Bar Association and state legislators, Gov. Chris Christie signed an alimony reform bill in September 2014. Following extreme last-minute lobbying by the bar association, it reflected nominal changes at best and sadly has created a dual application of law.

Those who divorced after the law and the tens of thousands who were divorced prior to it are being held to differing standards. With minor exceptions, the law was not retroactive.

One of the few, but important, changes for previously divorced people was that upon reaching the federal retirement age, generally identified as when an individual can collect Social Security benefits, a basis for a presumable or expected end to alimony in retirement was included. This was rebuttable, or arguable, by the receiving spouse, but shifted the burden of justification and proof that an ex-spouse needed to continue to receive alimony onto the receiving spouse. It had previously been on the paying spouse and was in part what led to New Jersey’s notorious “lifetime alimony” obligation as it was virtually impossible to end through the courts and would often be financially back-breaking to try.

Now 18 months into the new law, the courts are deciding cases and setting precedent by applying the changes. On Feb. 22, New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Marie E. Lihotz decided the case of Landers v. Landers. The decision marks the first “published” decision that addresses the retirement provisions in the September 2014 statute.

Lihotz ruled essentially that if a payor spouse who was divorced prior to the September 2014 amendments seeks to retire at his or her “full retirement,” the burden remains on the payor spouse to “demonstrate that modification or termination of alimony is appropriate.”

The most distressing outcome of this decision is that the primary law change proposed by alimony reform groups prior to the 2014 bill was the creation of a bill that provides a clear framework for divorcing couples, attorneys and judges, resulting in a consistent and fair outcome. What was signed by Christie and is now being applied in courts is exactly what the bar association so vigorously lobbied for: more shades of gray, keeping the door wide open for more widespread and inconsistent interpretation by lawyers and judges and further exacerbating the current problems of families being wiped out financially in going through divorces because there is absolutely no predictability on an end result.

I provide the following example from the Einhorn Harris law firm’s posting on the Landers decision:

“Although the Legislature amended New Jersey’s alimony statute in several regards, the fact still remains that disputes over the length of alimony, type of alimony, and, amount of alimony (the most often litigated aspect of alimony), require strategy, a well-articulated set of facts, a cogent legal argument, and the preparation of legal documents that may either “carry the day” in court — or lead to less than desirable consequences. In many cases, this requires the services of a good, reputable, attorney who can navigate through the facts and legal arguments on your behalf.”

Sounds to me like those shades of gray in the current alimony law are alive and well in New Jersey. Sadly, more of the same for those divorced and struggling with New Jersey’s continuing antiquated rational and application of law on alimony.

The writer lives in Burlington City.