Introduction 

In a recent Appellate Division decision, Voynick v. Voynick (A-1264-23), the Court addressed significant legal standards concerning the termination or modification of permanent alimony under  N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3), based upon the retirement of the obligor/payor when the judgment or  order establishing the alimony obligation was entered prior to the 2014 amendment to N.J.S.A.  2A:34-23. This case provides valuable insight into how the New Jersey court evaluated an alimony  obligation when the supporting spouse retires, especially under the amended statute.

Navigating the Alimony Responsibility After Retirement: Key Factors

Background 

The parties, Diane Voynick (Plaintiff-Respondent) and Brian Voynick (Defendant-Appellant),  were married in 1979 and divorced in 2003. The Final Judgment of Divorce (FJD) incorporated  their Property Settlement Agreement (PSA), which stipulated that Brian would pay Diane  permanent alimony of $120,000 per year. At the time of the divorce, Diane was 48 years of age 

and Brian was 47 years of age. Brian was the owner of a veterinary practice and continued to  operate his veterinary practice until he sold it in September, 2020. Brian continued to work part time with the new entity. Brian’s compensation was based upon his commissions until his  retirement in May, 2021. During the marriage, Diane was primarily responsible for the home and  the children, but also worked as a bookkeeper at the hospital after defendant established it several  years into the marriage. She ceased working at the veterinary practice after the divorce, and did  not obtain alternative employment after the divorce. After retiring Brian continued to pay alimony  and became eligible for full Social Security retirement benefits in April, 2023, twenty years after  the divorce.

Legal Issue 

In July 2023, Brian filed a motion to terminate his alimony obligation. He asserted that upon  reaching full retirement age, his retirement constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting a termination in alimony. Diane opposed the motion, asserting her continued need for  alimony due to health issues and her current financial situation. The trial court initially determined  that Brian failed to show a prima facie change in circumstances under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3) that would warrant a termination of his alimony obligation. Brian appealed that decision, asserting  the trial court erred in its determination.

Court's Analysis 

On appeal, the Appellate Divisions decision outlined several key points: 

  1. Good Faith Retirement Age: The court acknowledged that Brian had reached a "good  faith retirement age" as defined by the Social Security Act, which is a critical factor under  N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3)
  2. Prima Facie Showing of Changed Circumstances: While Brian has reached a good faith  retirement age, the court emphasized that merely reaching retirement age does not  automatically warrant termination of alimony. Therefore, Brian needed to demonstrate that  his retirement substantially impaired his ability to support himself under the same standard  of living enjoyed during the marriage and continue paying alimony.  
  3. Financial Circumstances: Brian failed to provide sufficient information to enable the  court to undertake an appropriate analysis of his income and assets to determine whether  there was a prima facie showing of a change in circumstances. The court found that Brian's  financial disclosures did not support his claim that he could no longer afford to pay  alimony. Brian failed to adequately categorize the assets in his CIS and failed to engage in  any financial analysis including an income stream analysis of his non-immune assets.  Therefore, the court found the approximate $8 million in assets held by Brian at the time  he made the application and the potential income that could be generated from these assets demonstrated he had the ability to continue paying alimony.
  4. Plaintiff's Ability to Save for Retirement: The court also considered Diane's ability to  save adequately for retirement. Diane's did not provide adequate financial disclosure  exhibiting that her financial circumstances demonstrated a continuing need for alimony,  nor did she provide any specific reasons or analysis showing her inability to have saved for  retirement over the past 20 years since the divorce. Diane showed a net worth of $2.75  million, but the court found genuine issues of material fact regarding her ability to save  and her continuing need for alimony.

Decision 

The Appellate court concluded that the trial court misapplied its discretion in determining that Diane’s opposition to Brian's motion had satisfied her obligation to prove her current financial  circumstances, or that she was unable to adequately save for retirement requiring a continuation  of alimony at its current level of $120,000 per year. Therefore, it vacated the trial courts order  denying Brian’s motion to terminate alimony and remanded the matter back to the trial court for  to set a discovery schedule and ordered a full plenary hearing. The court directed both parties to  provide detailed financial information to assess whether a modification or termination of alimony  is warranted. At the hearing, the burden will remain on Brian to prove, by preponderance of the  evidence, that a modification or termination of alimony is warranted under N.J.S.A. 2A:34- 

23(j)(3).

Implications 

This case underscores the importance of formulating a comprehensive outline, with financial  disclosures, and a detailed analysis when seeking to modify or terminate alimony based on a  payor’s retirement. It highlights that reaching normal retirement age and retiring from employment is insufficient and does not trigger an automatic modification or termination; the obligor must  demonstrate a substantial change in financial circumstances impacting his/her ability to continue  paying alimony at its current rate. Additionally, the court's consideration of the obligee's ability to  save for retirement is crucial in determining the continuing need for alimony.

Conclusion 

The Voynick v. Voynick, decision provides a nuanced approach to evaluating alimony obligations  upon retirement, balancing the financial realities of both parties. It serves as a reminder that  thorough preparation and detailed financial analysis are essential in family law cases element of  consideration involving an application for alimony modification or termination. 

Call Aronsohn Weiner Salerno & Kaufman, P.C. for your family law matters at (201) 487- 4747.

Contact Us Today

required

required

required