ROBERT ISETTS VS. ANGELA ISETTS(FM-07-1027-08, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3799-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Parties divorced in 2008 under a Property Settlement Agreement: plaintiff (Robert Isetts) obligated to pay permanent alimony and maintain life insurance naming defendant (Angela Isetts) as beneficiary.
- At divorce, plaintiff's income for alimony purposes was set at $82,000 (excluding his State Police and Fire pension); defendant's income imputed at $30,000.
- In Nov. 2015 plaintiff moved pro se to modify/terminate alimony, citing prostate cancer, Family Medical Leave, alleged mold-related allergies at work, resignation, and intent to rely on his pension.
- Plaintiff asserted inability to return to his security-director job and sought relief from alimony; he later obtained counsel and sought retroactive modification or suspension.
- Defendant cross-moved to dismiss for failure to file case information statements, to deny modification, to enforce arrears and require life-insurance proof.
- Family Part denied plaintiff’s modification, found only a temporary change in circumstances, ordered repayment of arrears, future payments via probation/wage garnishment when employed, and required proof of life insurance; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff established prima facie permanent changed circumstances to modify/terminate alimony | Cancer, mold allergy, resignation, and retirement leave him unable to work and unable to pay alimony | Plaintiff failed to show medical proof he cannot work; employer offered accommodation; retirement was voluntary | Court held plaintiff showed only temporary change; no prima facie showing of permanent changed circumstances, so modification denied |
| Whether plenary hearing was required on modification motion | A plenary hearing should be held to resolve factual disputes about health and employability | No plenary hearing needed because plaintiff's submissions did not establish prima facie entitlement to modification | Court declined plenary hearing as obligor did not meet prima facie burden |
| Enforcement of life-insurance requirement under Agreement | Plaintiff contended defendant waived insurance or he cannot obtain a policy due to cancer | Defendant sought enforcement and proof of insurance per Agreement | Court ordered plaintiff to provide proof of life insurance within ten days but left open prospective relief if plaintiff proves he cannot obtain a policy |
| Relief during temporary Family Medical Leave (suspension of enforcement) | Plaintiff urged suspension of enforcement under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(m) while on leave | Defendant sought collection of arrears and ongoing enforcement | Court ordered arrears paid within 30 days and future payments handled through probation/garnishment when employed; treatment deemed within court’s discretion given temporary change |
Key Cases Cited
- Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (recognizes modification of spousal support requires showing of substantial and permanent changed circumstances)
- Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408 (central inquiry for termination is obligor's ability to pay)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (appellate review deference to factfinding; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Smith v. Smith, 72 N.J. 350 (courts consider all circumstances to determine equitable support modifications)
- Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Kafil, 395 N.J. Super. 597 (appellate courts review legal conclusions de novo)