STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSE LUIS SUAREZ (07-04-0573, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1518-15T4

Background

Jose Rivera and Maria Rivera-Torres divorced in 2012 after a trial; final judgment ordered Jose to pay permanent alimony of $125/week.
Jose retired in July 2012 at age 68; his only income became Social Security (~$1,754/month) and he accumulated alimony arrears (~$15,625 by Oct. 2015).
Maria (age 60 at hearing) did not work, was not yet eligible for Social Security, lived with S.D. who paid most household expenses, and had no significant savings or ability to earn income.
In Feb. 2015 Jose moved to terminate or modify alimony, alleging retirement and defendant's cohabitation since 2007.
The trial court found Jose not credible, rejected the cohabitation claim (already addressed at divorce), reduced alimony to $85/week effective Feb. 28, 2015, and set termination at July 31, 2017 (when Maria would reach age 62 and be eligible for Social Security).
Jose appealed, arguing the 2014 amendment to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 (including a rebuttable presumption of termination at full retirement age) applied, and that the court abused its discretion in denying termination and in using the motion filing date rather than retirement date for modification.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2014 amendment's rebuttable presumption of termination on reaching full retirement age (N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(1)) applied	Rivera: Court should apply subsection (j)(1) or otherwise apply amendment retroactively because divorce followed a trial	Rivera-Torres: Order predated amendment; (j)(3) governs existing orders; no retroactive application	Court: (j)(1) does not apply; (j)(3) governs orders established before amendment; no distinction for trial vs. agreement — no retroactivity.
Whether plaintiff's retirement required termination of alimony under amended statute standards	Rivera: Good-faith retirement and reduced income warrant termination; court misapplied factors and ignored that Maria could work	Rivera-Torres: Maria lacks ability to earn, depends on household support, not eligible for SS; modification rather than termination appropriate	Court: Substantial credible evidence supports denial of termination under (j)(3); court’s factual findings upheld.
Whether the trial court abused discretion by considering plaintiff's liquidated 401(k) when assessing ability to pay	Rivera: Considering liquidated 401(k) violated N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(4) which forbids considering assets distributed at divorce	Rivera-Torres: Court referenced liquidation only regarding arrears, not ability to pay going forward	Court: No violation found; 401(k) remark concerned arrears, not post-retirement ability to pay.
Proper effective date for alimony modification (retirement date vs. motion filing date)	Rivera: Modification should be retroactive to July 2012 retirement date	Rivera-Torres: Court may set different date; unfair to erase arrears accumulated while obligor delayed bringing motion	Court: No abuse of discretion in using motion filing date for modification given arrears and lack of justification for delay; good cause exists.

Key Cases Cited

Spangenberg v. Kolakowski, 442 N.J. Super. 529 (App. Div. 2015) (standard for changed-circumstances modification review)
Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414 (2015) (appellate deference to factual findings supported by substantial credible evidence)
Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) (changed circumstances standard for alimony modification)
Landers v. Landers, 444 N.J. Super. 315 (App. Div. 2016) (interpretation of 2014 amendment and distinction between orders entered before and after amendment)
Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. Super. 552 (App. Div. 2013) (legal questions reviewed de novo)
Lozano v. Frank DeLuca Const., 178 N.J. 513 (2004) (statutory interpretation follows plain language)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standard for overturning factfindings)

Affirmed.