Thomas Leustek told a Union County judge his wife was a successful psychologist with a thriving practice who didn’t need additional money from him, but the judge overseeing the couple’s divorce disagreed.

The judge reviewed the couple’s tax returns for the previous three years, two of which his wife spent in school earning her doctorate. Then he ordered Leustek, a professor of plant biology at Rutgers University, to pay her $3,000 a month indefinitely.

That experience in 2007 led Leustek to become an activist and found New Jersey Alimony Reform, which pushes to eliminate permanent or lifetime alimony and restrict the wide discretion judges have in setting alimony payments.

Now, he is working with Assemblyman Sean Kean (R-Monmouth) to introduce a bill that would set up a blue-ribbon committee to examine changes in alimony laws and "bring New Jersey into the 21st century." The main problem, Kean and Leustek say, is permanent alimony awards, which thousands of state residents receive each year.

"For some people, it’s a lifetime sentence and they’re not confident that spending money to go into court will make any difference," Kean said.

But changing the law may be a challenge because many among the state’s legal establishment don’t see an injustice.

Thomas Snyder, a Denville attorney who is the former chairman of the New Jersey Bar Association’s family law section, said any changes to the law should not "throw the baby out with the bath water."

"I don’t think the alimony laws are antiquated by any means," Snyder said. "It actually sets up a framework for a judge who can use his or her discretion to fashion a solution for each case. If we lower the standard too much, we will be harming dependent spouses."

Under existing state law, judges use several factors in determining whether a spouse should get alimony, including the length of a marriage, the family’s finances and whether both spouses were employed.

Although the law allows for modifications in permanent alimony when circumstances change — such as when a spouse loses a job or retires — it’s not automatic and people have to go to court to get the modifications.

Leustek said permanent alimony "devastates families," because the divorcing couple is never truly divorced. The legal wrangling continues between the parties, keeping the anger and bitter feelings alive.

He pointed out that said Massachusetts eliminated life time alimony from its laws in September 2011.

Snyder, however, said most alimony payments include a portion applied to child support if there are children involved.

"The problem people have is not with the statute but how the statute is being applied," he said. "The remedy is the appellate division."

Sally Goldfarb, a professor of family law at Rutgers Law School in Camden, said there are no studies on how many divorces in New Jersey include alimony, but national figures kept in the 1970s and 1980s showed fewer than 17 percent of all divorces included some form of alimony.

"From my experience, that’s probably still the case," Goldfarb said. "A grant of alimony is an exception, not the rule."

She said the law is deliberately vague to give judges the latitude to fashion solutions that fit each individual case.

But Leonard Weitzman of Bridgewater, an attorney who specializes in family law, supports Kean’s proposed bill.

Weitzman believes the laws have to be modified to fit the realities of the current economy.

"I would say the greater percentage of my clients are high income women and, in those cases, alimony can be rewarding bad behavior," he said. "One spouse could have been loyal and committed for years and suddenly the other leaves the marriage for someone new. New Jersey law does not consider those actions when it comes to alimony."

Lisa Manyoky, a self-employed consultant and mother of three young children, would agree with Weitzman.

Manyoky, 49, was married almost 13 years before her husband told her he wanted a divorce in 2006. She said he moved in with a woman who worked for his business and had been a friend of hers for years. She said her husband owned his own chimney cleaning business but "there was a salary discrepancy between us."

"He asked for enough alimony to cancel out his child support and he succeeded," Manyoky said, adding that continued until he remarried several years ago and the number was modified. "He now pays me a pittance for child support."

While passions often run high on both sides of the alimony issue, Goldfarb said "it is understandable that individuals are angry, but we should not allow those kinds of emotions to lead to large scale changes in state law."

She said that would hurt both sides and society.

"The people ordered to pay it feel its unfair and the people who get it don’t believe its enough," Goldfarb said.



By Sue Epstein and Ben Horowitz/The Star-Ledger



Related coverage:

• Former Bridgeton woman: Reduced alimony made me homeless