PETER DALEDDA VS. LORETTA GUARDINO(FM-02-1937-10, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3215-15T3

Parties divorced in 2011 and executed a property settlement and support agreement requiring plaintiff (then earning $180,400) to pay permanent alimony of $42,500/year and an equal division of marital retirement assets.
Plaintiff lost his job in March 2015, stopped alimony payments in June 2015, and defendant sought enforcement; plaintiff sought modification/termination of alimony and emancipation of the child.
The Family Part (Sept. 30, 2015) found plaintiff’s unemployment was temporary, denied modification, and ordered payment of arrears; emancipation denied.
Plaintiff obtained new employment in Oct. 2015 earning $114,000/year; he moved for reconsideration and emancipation was later granted but alimony modification denied (Dec. 2, 2015).
Defendant sought garnishment and monitoring; the court ordered wage garnishment and a lump-sum payment of $11,442.34 on March 22, 2016. Plaintiff appealed only the reconsideration order denying alimony modification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff established changed circumstances warranting downward modification of alimony	Daledda contends his income fell ~37% after job loss/new lower-paying job, entitling him to modification and a plenary hearing	Guardino argues the income reduction was not shown to be permanent and plaintiff failed to meet burden to modify	Court held plaintiff did not show permanent changed circumstances; modification denied and no plenary hearing required
Whether the trial judge failed to consider the parties' agreement and statutory factors	Plaintiff asserts judge ignored the agreement's modification provision and relevant factors	Defendant contends the judge considered the submissions and applied controlling law	Court found judge considered probative evidence and correctly applied law; no abuse of discretion
Whether reconsideration was warranted based on judicial error or overlooked evidence	Plaintiff argues the judge’s decision was palpably incorrect or failed to appreciate competent evidence	Defendant argues reconsideration standards are narrow and plaintiff did not meet them	Court held reconsideration denied because plaintiff did not fit narrow grounds (palpably incorrect or overlooked material evidence)
Whether plaintiff is entitled to counsel fees or remand to a new judge	Plaintiff sought fees and a new judge	Defendant opposed fees and remand	Court declined to address remand (unnecessary) and denied fee request as lacking merit

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (state family courts afforded deference on factual findings)
Manalapan Realty v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (no special deference to legal conclusions)
Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (changed circumstances standard for alimony modification)
J.B. v. W.B., 215 N.J. 305 (income reduction may qualify as changed circumstances)
Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408 (focus on supporting spouse's ability to pay for downward modification)
Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17 (trial court discretion in modification decisions)
D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392 (narrow standard for granting reconsideration)
Fusco v. Bd. of Educ., 349 N.J. Super. 455 (appellate review limited to orders listed in notice of appeal)