Deborah Spangenberg v. David Kolakowski
125 A.3d 739
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2015Background
- Parties divorced in June 2012; a marital settlement agreement (MSA) incorporated in the final judgment fixed alimony at $2,200/month based on imputed incomes ($125,000 for Kolakowski; $45,000 for Spangenberg) and required an alimony review on or about June 7, 2014 and disclosure of 2013 financials.
- MSA required Spangenberg to notify Kolakowski if she began cohabiting, triggering an alimony review consistent with existing case law.
- Spangenberg admitted she began cohabiting on August 31, 2013; the trial court reduced alimony in December 2013 after finding she received an economic benefit from cohabitation and set new child support/college-share figures using a mix of actual and imputed incomes.
- Kolakowski sought further modification/termination of alimony (citing decreased earnings) and recalculation of child support and college contributions; the trial court denied relief in orders of September 19 and November 7, 2014, finding insufficient financial disclosure from Kolakowski.
- The Appellate Division held the 2014 statutory amendments addressing cohabitation do not apply retroactively to post-judgment orders finalized before the statute’s effective date, but found the record showed genuine disputes about both parties’ incomes requiring a plenary hearing; the court vacated the challenged orders (in part) and remanded for a new plenary hearing before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Spangenberg) | Defendant's Argument (Kolakowski) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of 2014 alimony/cohabitation statute to pre-effective orders | New statute should not upset the prior court-ordered reduction; MSA review already conducted | 2014 amendments should permit suspension/termination of alimony for cohabitation | Statute does not apply to post-judgment orders finalized before its effective date; prior reduction stands |
| Whether alimony/child support should be further modified for changed incomes | Current need/awards remain justified absent full proof of permanent income change | Decrease in business income and earnings justify terminating/suspending or reducing alimony and support | Record shows genuine factual disputes about incomes; trial court erred by denying a plenary hearing; remand for evidentiary hearing |
| Adequacy of parties’ financial disclosures (and weight given to imputed income) | Court may rely on imputed incomes and prior findings; plaintiff disclosed some documents | Defendant furnished tax returns, K-1 and paystubs and claims reduced income; trial judge wrongly faulted him for incomplete disclosure without record support | Trial court’s factual findings on disclosure not supported; further discovery/hearing ordered to determine accurate incomes and appropriate imputation |
| Allocation of college costs and child support recalculation | Court’s prior recalculation (after December 2013 reduction in alimony) was appropriate | College contributions and child support must be recalculated once true incomes and alimony levels are established | Child support and college obligation orders reversed for recalculation after plenary hearing determining incomes and prior obligations |
Key Cases Cited
- Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149 (N.J. 1983) (cohabitation can affect alimony when economic benefit to payee is shown)
- Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (N.J. 1980) (changed circumstances standard for modification of support)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (appellate review and deference to trial court findings)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (N.J. 1974) (standard for reversing factual findings unsupported by credible evidence)
- Martindell v. Martindell, 21 N.J. 341 (N.J. 1956) (broad discretion of trial courts in support modification)
- Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. Super. 552 (App. Div. 2013) (treatment of cohabitation and economic benefit in alimony adjustments)