MIRIAM B. STENGER VS. JAMES R. STENGER(FM-14-1206-04, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1582-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- Miriam and James Stenger divorced in 2005; their Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) incorporated into the final judgment required James to pay permanent alimony of $162,000/year and maintain a $1,000,000 life insurance policy naming Miriam beneficiary.
- The PSA allowed James to retain his 50% interest in National Association Services, Inc. (NAS) in exchange for paying Miriam $800,000 (promissory note secured by his NAS stock); NAS was valued at about $1.8 million at the time.
- In 2010 James sold NAS for $10.2 million, received about $5.1 million, paid Miriam the $800,000 lump sum, and invested the remainder; he later worked for the buyer then retired at age 61 and moved to Florida.
- In 2015 James moved to terminate or reduce alimony and the insurance obligation based on retirement and reduced earned income; Miriam opposed and sought to compel maintenance of the $1,000,000 policy.
- The Family Part denied James’s motion and denied reconsideration; the judge concluded James failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and had not supplied adequate documentation of his investment income, and that proceeds from the NAS sale could be considered in assessing his ability to pay.
- Both sides appealed/cross‑appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retirement and reduced earned income constitute a sufficient changed circumstance to warrant alimony modification | Miriam: alimony should continue; James remains able to pay, including from investment proceeds | James: retirement reduced earned income to zero; parties anticipated his retirement around age 62; modification and discovery/plenary hearing required | Denied — James failed to make prima facie showing; trial court properly denied discovery/plenary hearing and considered investment proceeds when assessing ability to pay |
| Whether trial court should have ordered discovery/plenary hearing before ruling on motion | Miriam: no additional discovery needed because James didn’t meet prima facie burden | James: conflicting certifications create factual dispute requiring discovery and plenary hearing | Denied — party seeking modification must first make prima facie showing; judge properly required adequate documentation before ordering plenary hearing |
| Whether proceeds from sale of NAS (or income generated from them) are excluded from alimony ability-to-pay analysis | Miriam: proceeds/income are appropriate to consider | James: proceeds should be excluded; inquiry should be limited to current earned income | Denied — court may consider income generated from assets, including proceeds of NAS sale; PSA did not exclude such proceeds |
| Whether insurance obligation should be maintained or adjusted at age 62 per PSA | Miriam: maintain $1,000,000 policy | James: PSA contemplates renegotiation at age 62 and retirement supports reduction | Denied for James — PSA provision only required renegotiation of insurance amount at 62, not alimony; clause relates to premium/actuarial costs, not automatic alimony change |
Key Cases Cited
- Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414 (recognition that trial court findings are binding on appeal when supported by substantial credible evidence)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (standard for appellate review of family court factfinding and deference to family courts)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (appellate review standard quoted for disturbing trial findings)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (plenary review of legal conclusions)
- Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of Newark, 349 N.J. Super. 455 (abuse of discretion standard for reconsideration motions)
- Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (moving party must make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances to obtain modification)
- J.B. v. W.B., 215 N.J. 305 (PSA governed by contract principles)
- Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408 (income derived from exempt assets may be considered in alimony/modification analysis)
- Aronson v. Aronson, 245 N.J. Super. 354 (income generated by an exempt asset is treated like other income for alimony analysis)