Charles Mainor

Assemblyman Charles Mainor (D-Hudson), shown in this file photo, is the lead sponsor of a bill to overhaul the state's "ancient" alimony law

(The Jersey Journal)

TRENTON — A long effort to change New Jersey's "ancient" law on alimony is beginning to gain steam in the state Legislature.

The state Assembly today voted 77-0 with 1 abstention to approve a compromise bill that would strike the term “permanent alimony” from the law books and make other changes to the system, which lawmakers said is a throwback to past decades when often only one spouse worked.

“We looked at the payers and we looked at the payees, and we realized that the current alimony laws are ancient and had to be brought up to 2014,” Assemblyman Charles Mainor (D-Hudson) said at an Assembly Judiciary Committee meeting on the bill this morning.

Mainor said he’s been working on the issue — which had been debated but had not advanced in committee until today — for two-and-a-half years.

The bill applies mainly to future divorces. However, the bill does allow a “rebuttable presumption” that payments will end once the person paying them reaches "full retirement age," which lawmakers said would be the federal retirement age, which is currently 67. But if a person reaches that age and has not retired yet, a judge can "establish the conditions under which the modification or termination of alimony will be effective." And if a person wants to retire before that age, he or she would "have the burden" of showing that the plan is "reasonable and made in good faith."

Among the bill’s other major changes:

• For future divorces, if the couple has been married no more than 20 years, the length of alimony payments cannot exceed the length of the marriage unless a judge decides there are “exceptional circumstances.”

• Under current law, alimony generally ends when the person who receives the payments gets remarried. Under the bill, if that person lives with a new partner without getting married, a judge could end or suspend the payments. The bill defines cohabitation as involving a “mutually supportive, intimate personal relationship in which a couple has undertaken duties and privileges that are commonly associated with marriage or civil union.”

• Judges would be able to modify alimony payments if the payer has been out of work for 90 days.

• The legal term “permanent alimony,” which many lawyers argue is misleading, would be replaced with “open durational alimony.”

The bill is a mash-up of competing legislation on alimony. Many of the changes reflect “evolving case law,” according to the New Jersey State Bar Association, which supports the bill.

“The New Jersey State Bar Association considers it among our highest priorities to ensure that any legislation touching upon alimony is just and fair to all,” said Paris Eliades, the association’s president. “Through the persistence, patience and dedicated efforts of the officers of the NJSBA Family Law Executive Committee we have helped to guide our legislative leadership to achieve meaningful and balanced alimony reform.”

Not everyone was happy. Erich Truax, a 52-year-old service engineer from Galloway, said the change in law would do little to relieve him of his crushing alimony payments. Between that and child support, Truax said half his income goes to his ex-wife.

A previous version of the legislation would have applied to previous divorces, meaning Truax – who had been married 17 years and divorced in 2002-- would have likely been off the hook for payments in five years.

“I find myself as an indentured servant. Enslaved by the state and the laws that we have existing,” Truax said.

Michael Turner, a lobbyist for New Jersey Alimony Reform, called the bill "best outcome that could be achieved for two-and-a-half years effort," but said it doesn't go far enough.

"Primarily, the bill benefits future alimony payers. Unfortunately, the bill does little for current alimony payers, which is unfortunate," Turner said. "This effort was started by current alimony payers and their supporters who brought attention to the unfair laws, and who are the victims of the unfair laws."

Some lawmakers lamented that they barely had a chance to read the compromise legislation before voting on it, but they supported it anyway.

“Something of this magnitude I candidly wish I had a little bit more time to absorb,” said Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi (R-Bergen). “I’m relying upon the assurances of the State Bar Association and their comfort that this is fair to everybody, which will dictate my vote on this.”

The still needs to pass the state Senate and win the governor's approval to become law.

Update: This story has been revised to reflect its passage in the full Assembly. When it was first published, only the Assembly Judiciary Committee had approved it.

RELATED COVERAGE

• Alimony reform bill introduced in State Assembly

• More Politics

FOLLOW STAR-LEDGER POLITICS: TWITTER • FACEBOOK • GOOGLE+