Nancy E. Landers v. Patrick J. Landers
133 A.3d 637
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2016Background
- Nancy Landers and Patrick Landers divorced by Final Judgment of Divorce (FJOD) in 1991; the FJOD awarded declining unallocated support (alimony/support) to Nancy and unemancipated children, with alimony $1,000/month as of Dec. 1, 2001.
- Patrick paid for ~24 years with no arrears; the FJOD did not mention retirement as an alimony termination event.
- After Patrick turned 66 he retired; his income became Social Security Retirement and a pension distributed in the divorce. He moved to terminate alimony based on retirement.
- Nancy opposed termination, arguing her continued need and that the 2014 alimony statute amendments do not change pre-2014 FJODs; she sought continuation of alimony and maintenance of life insurance.
- The Family Part judge applied N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(1) (the post-amendment rebuttable-presumption rule) and terminated alimony, finding Nancy failed to rebut the presumption; Nancy appealed.
- The Appellate Division held the judge applied the wrong statutory subsection and remanded for application of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3), which governs retirement modifications for alimony orders entered before the statute’s effective date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which subsection of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j) governs a retirement-based alimony modification when the FJOD predates the 2014 amendments? | Landers: (plaintiff) The judge should have applied (j)(3), which governs pre-2014 final alimony orders and places burden on the obligor to show modification is appropriate. | Patrick: The judge applied (j)(1) (rebuttable presumption that alimony terminates at full retirement age) and maintained that rule governs. | Court: (j)(3) applies to FJODs entered before the amendments; (j)(1) applies to orders entered after the effective date. The March 27, 2015 order is vacated and remanded. |
| Who bears the burden of proof on modification for pre-2014 alimony orders when obligor retires? | Landers: Burden should be on obligor to prove by preponderance that modification/termination is appropriate under (j)(3). | Patrick: By applying (j)(1) the trial judge placed burden on obligee to rebut presumption. | Court: For pre-2014 orders (j)(3) applies and requires the obligor to show by a preponderance of evidence that modification/termination is appropriate. |
| What specific factors must the court analyze on remand for pre-2014 orders? | Landers: Court must analyze obligee’s ability to have saved for retirement and other (j)(3) factors (age, health, ability to maintain payments, obligee’s financial independence). | Patrick: Court relied on (j)(1) factors and presumption instead. | Court: (j)(3) requires explicit consideration of obligee’s ability to have saved adequately and listed factors (age, health, employment, retirement eligibility, motives, ability to maintain payments, obligee’s financial independence, etc.). |
| Does the 2014 legislative statement preserve pre-existing contractual/alimony durations and require different treatment? | Landers: Yes; legislative history and §2 preserve prior final orders/agreements and support applying (j)(3) to pre-2014 orders. | Patrick: Argued the judge’s application of (j)(1) was appropriate (implicitly contending uniform application). | Court: Legislative text/history distinguishes pre- and post-amendment orders; courts must apply (j)(3) to pre-2014 final orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414 (recognizing appellate deference to trial factual findings supported by credible evidence)
- D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168 (explaining de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (establishing changed-circumstances standard for alimony modification)
- Silvan v. Sylvan, 267 N.J. Super. 578 (listing factors for retirement-based alimony modification)
- Deegan v. Deegan, 254 N.J. Super. 350 (discussing retirement and alimony modification factors)
- Spangenberg v. Kolakowski, 442 N.J. Super. 529 (analyzing 2014 amendments and legislative intent to preserve prior agreements)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (standard for overturning factual findings as unsupported)