Alimony is financial support paid by one spouse to the other. Alimony is in addition to child support and is not related to the child’s emancipation. It is support paid by one spouse to the other solely for the support of the recipient spouse regardless of the needs or status of the children.
There are very important differences between alimony payments and child support not only in terms of a person’s initial entitlement, but with regard to the duration, the ability to modify the amount and the termination of the payments. However, one of the most important distinctions is that child support is not tax deductible by the person making the payments nor is it considered taxable income to the person who is receiving the payments. Alimony, on the other hand, is tax deductible to the payor and is considered taxable income to the recipient. Consult with an experienced Stark & Stark New Jersey Alimony lawyer to learn more.
There are several types of alimony in New Jersey:
A “substantial change of circumstances” may include a significant increase in a party’s income, a significant decrease in a party’s income, a medical condition, a termination of employment or retirement.
In determining both the type and amount of alimony, the court must consider specific factors including:
It is often said that both the recipient and the payer of the alimony should be able to enjoy the “standard of living which was established and maintained during the marriage.”
However, that concept is much more of a guidepost than an attainable reality in most cases. In all but an extraordinarily high income family, it is simply impossible for both parties to maintain the same standard of living that was enjoyed by them during the marriage. In the vast majority of cases, both parties will have to compromise their marital lifestyle. It is simply arithmetically impossible to divide the post-divorce income into two family units and have each of the units equal the prior single family unit lifestyle.
There are very important principles of law which address the situation in which a payer’s income increases after the divorce. The application of those principles requires an in depth review by a competent Divorce Attorney. However, the general concept is that the recipient of alimony is only entitled to enjoy the lifestyle and thus receive alimony based upon the payer’s income during the marriage and at the time of the divorce. They are not entitled to share in income increases which occur after the dissolution of the marital partnership and without contribution or support from the recipient spouse.
On the other hand, if the parties’ financial circumstances at the time of the divorce do not enable the recipient spouse to be supported at the standard of living which was enjoyed during the marriage, and the payer’s post-divorce income rises to a level that then enables a payment which would maintain the marital standard, a post-divorce increase in the amount of alimony may be warranted.
In New Jersey, an alimony obligation is modifiable based upon a showing that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the time of the divorce. Examples of a “change in circumstance” that may warrant a modification of an alimony obligation include an increase or an involuntary decrease in either party’s income/finances, cohabitation of the alimony recipient tantamount to remarriage, involuntary loss of employment, and good faith retirement of the payor.
The termination of the payor’s alimony obligation occasioned upon a payor’s retirement is not automatic. It is up to the payor to file an application with the Court to modify and/or terminate their alimony obligation due to their retirement. In determining whether a payor’s impending retirement constitutes a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification and/or termination, the Court will consider (1) the age and health of the parties seeking to retire, and (2) the motive and timing of the impending retirement. The Court will also look at the payor’s ability to pay alimony after retirement, as well as the recipient spouse’s ability to provide for themselves. This involves an examination of both parties’ incomes and assets.
In the event the Court determines that the reason for retirement is to avoid their alimony obligation, the payor’s application will be denied. In the event that the Court finds that the payor’s retirement is in good faith, the Court must then determine whether the advantage of the retirement to the retiring spouse outweighs the disadvantage to the recipient. This determination is critical to the analysis. In the event that the Court determines that the advantage to the payor in retiring does not “substantially outweigh” the disadvantage to the recipient, then the payor’s retirement, even though pursued in good faith, will not be a basis to modify their alimony obligation. This is a fact sensitive inquiry that the Court determines on a case-by-case basis.
Contact an experienced NJ alimony attorney today at 800-535-3425 or leave us a message.
"*" indicates required fields
Stark & Stark Attorneys Recognized as New Jersey “Super Lawyers” and “Rising Stars” in 2026
Stark & Stark is pleased to announce that 15 of its attorneys have been selected for inclusion in the list of 2026 New Jersey Super Lawyers,...Bruce Stern, Esq. Secures $1,000,000 Settlement in Motor Vehicle Collision Case
Bruce Stern, Esq. recently secured a $1,000,000 settlement in a motor vehicle collision case.* “This case highlights how quickly things can go...Deborah Dunn, Esq. Elected to Board of Directors for Angel Flight East
Stark & Stark is pleased to announce that Deborah Dunn, Esq., Shareholder and Civil Trial Attorney, has been elected to the Board of Directors...Michael Jordan, Esq. Joins the Board of the Lawrence Township Community Foundation
It is our pleasure to announce that Michael Jordan, Esq. has joined the board of the Lawrence Township Community Foundation, an organization...Joseph Lemkin, Esq. Named to ROI-NJ Influencers: Power List 2026 – Law
Stark & Stark is proud to share that Joseph Lemkin, Esq., Shareholder, has been named to the 2026 Influencers: Power List in the Law category...Joseph Cullen, Esq. and Nicole Durso, Esq. Secure $2,000,000 Settlement in Personal Injury Matter
Joseph Cullen, Esq. and Nicole Durso, Esq. recently secured a $2,000,000 settlement in a personal injury matter involving a pedestrian who was struck...James Creegan, Esq. Appointed to Board of The 200 Club of Mercer County
It is our pleasure to announce that James Creegan, Esq. has been appointed to the Board of Directors of The 200 Club of Mercer County, an...