By Michelle Sartor Lang
Senior Multimedia Web Producer
New Jersey lawmakers are considering a bill that would eliminate permanent alimony awards in divorces and provide more guidance for judges in the alimony process. There is an Assembly Judiciary Committee meeting Monday, which supporters of the bill say is just the first step in changing the law. Those in favor of alimony reform say the changes will make the process more fair, but opponents say changes would unfairly affect women and children.
President of NJ Alimony Reform Tom Leustek said there are currently 13 factors that judges may consider when awarding alimony, but they don’t have to consider any of them because in New Jersey, judges have unlimited discretion. Although Leustek said judges should keep equity in mind when deciding on alimony, he said there are hundreds of horror stories that indicate there’s something wrong with the system.
“The bill that we’re proposing will provide guidance to judges — how long alimony should be awarded and the amount of alimony that should be awarded,” Leustek said. “One other very important part of the bill is that currently there really is no definition of what alimony should do. So what the bill does is define what alimony is, which is very important for what judges do beyond that.”
Opponents say the changes attempt to make the alimony process identical when situations differ. “Different couples have different assets, living circumstances, health/age/child considerations and so on,” explained the Displaced Homemakers Center Coordinator Laura Troy. “As it currently stands, judges can already apply case law to reevaluate spousal support agreements and decide if adjustments are necessary for extenuating circumstances, such as job loss, catastrophic illnesses, etc. Proponents of reform may have you believe that there is no flexibility for special circumstances, yet, there is.”
But according to Leustek, the bill allows for judges to use their discretion while providing guidelines to streamline the process. “As long as there’s a good reason to do so, a judge can deviate from the guidelines that we’re proposing,” he said.
Troy said members of the Displaced Homemakers Center believe alimony reform would unfairly affect women and children. “Many women who receive alimony struggle to work full-time jobs while raising children and running their households. They are not sitting on their couches all day eating bon-bons and trying to decide what to buy from QVC,” Troy said.
Women that the organization deals with are mainly between the ages of 40 and 55, have an average of two children under the age of 18 and have been out of the workforce for several years. Troy said they don’t have the skills needed to compete in today’s job market.
“These women have spent their time out of the paid workforce raising children — or even sacrificing their own careers — so that their husbands would not be burdened with child-rearing or household responsibilities. When they divorce, the former wife must find work in order to support herself and her children,” Troy said. “With no marketable, current skills, she cannot hope to attain a standard of living remotely comparable to that of the former marriage. She will likely reenter the workforce in an entry-level, low-paying position.”
NJ Alimony Reform Public Affairs Consultant Michael Turner said that the proposed changes wouldn’t eliminate alimony for situations where recipients really need the payments. “Let’s say that somebody is a multimillionaire and they’re challenging the permanent alimony status that they’re being force to pay right now to someone who’s never worked, never had a job, never had an education or has a disability for that matter. The judiciary’s gonna come back and say, well they’re not gonna get such a huge award, but their alimony payments are not gonna be eliminated because there’s a real need on the other side and there’s a real ability to pay on this side,” he explained.
Supporters of alimony reform also say that changing the law would benefit women as well as men, pointing to the group New Jersey Women for Alimony Reform, which is an offshoot of NJ Alimony Reform. Turner said that there are situations where the woman was the breadwinner of the relationship and she has to pay permanent alimony to her spouse, even if he worked off the books, while still being the custodial parent.
Troy said the Displaced Homemakers Network of New Jersey believes there will be negative consequences if the bill passes, including a greater burden on taxpayer-funded programs like food stamps, job preparedness and rental assistance and an over burdening of the court system. “Family courts will be inundated with divorce cases that will be re-litigated. This means that the state will have to pay additional judges and court staff in order to handle the high volume of court motions that will be filed,” she said. “Ultimately, this will cost the taxpayers of New Jersey.”
A recent Rutgers/Eagleton Center poll found that 75 percent of respondents oppose a recent appellate court ruling that found a supported spouse in a marriage lasting as little as 15 years must be paid alimony for life. Of the respondents, 67 percent of women opposed the ruling. Leustek said the results didn’t surprise him because people in the 21st century see marriage as an equal partnership with equal responsibilities.
Leustek also said that when a divorce happens, people need to move on with their lives and permanent alimony doesn’t allow that. Those paying alimony are “often saddled with a debt that can never be paid off, not even on retirement. On the other side of this coin is permanent alimony discourages the recipient from moving on with their lives. Often they don’t move on with their lives just so they can hold on to that windfall, that prize that they got at the time of the divorce,” he said.
But Troy paints a different picture of alimony recipients. “I have a client who recently lost her spousal support. She has a special needs son to support and her part-time job pays roughly $85 per week. Over the past year, the only ‘full-time’ work she found was with temporary agencies. She recently applied to the Board of Social Services for assistance and to the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation to obtain addition support for her son. She continues to search diligently for full-time work as she waits for her SNAP (food stamps) application to be approved,” Troy explained.
NJ Alimony Reform members also face hardships, according to Turner. He relayed one example of a woman who made more money than her husband during the marriage who is required to pay permanent alimony while also serving as the custodial parent. Her work hours were cut so she started making much less money than when the original alimony was awarded.
“She appealed to the court and the court said it’s only temporary. You’re gonna get a better job, you’re gonna make more money when the economy rebounds. You’ll be fine so, no, I’m not gonna allow this modification to take place,” Turner explained. “If she’s only making half of what she was making before, she should not be forced to pay alimony payments in excess of what she’s taking home every month. How is that fair? And unfortunately that’s the reality.”
Retired judge David J. Issenman said that while it’s wise to examine divorce laws, he isn’t convinced alimony reform alone is the best way to make changes to the process. “Our alimony laws and perhaps other laws pertaining to divorce need to be reviewed for sure. Everything in a divorce is interrelated and to pull out just one factor without looking at the relationship to all the other factors I think is an inappropriate method to solve a problem,” he said. “We would be better served to study all the issues and then make whatever amendments are necessary to our law.”
Despite the debate, NJ Alimony Reform members are optimistic that lawmakers will pass the bill for alimony reform. Leustek said the issue is gaining momentum in the Garden State and across the country with Massachusetts enacting alimony reform two years ago and Colorado doing it this past summer. Florida legislators passed alimony reform in the Assembly and Senate, but the governor vetoed the measure.
Turner said if everyone who has committed their support to the alimony reform bill votes yes, then the bill will pass both houses. But there is still a process ahead for that. After the Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee must meet on the measure and then it will go to the full bodies for votes. Then Gov. Chris Christie would have to sign the bill into law. There are 11 cosponsors in the Assembly and seven in the Senate, according to Turner.
Troy has a message for lawmakers considering the change. “The women of New Jersey are watching you. This issue is important to us and we vote. If you support alimony reform, we will not vote for you,” she said.
While Leustek said some lawmakers worry about losing female votes, the Eagleton poll results show there’s no difference with respect to gender. “Women have come a long way as a result of the equal rights movement. And women today are just as fearful as men of being saddled with lifetime alimony,” he said.
According to Turner, the goal is to promote compromise in divorce proceedings and make sure the decisions are fair. “If I have to factor in your education level and your ability to earn, and they’re gonna factor in my ability to pay, it’s gonna be someplace in the middle,” he explained. “So why are we gonna drag this out for as many years as possible spending a lot of money on attorney’s fees when we know the ultimate outcome’s gonna be something we’re probably well aware of right now?”
But Troy questions why the law needs to be changed. “Alimony is reduced all the time in New Jersey courts, but on a case-by-case basis,” she said. “Alimony is easily reduced by simply filing a court motion if you have good reason. If you’re not happy with the judge’s decision, you may take your case to the Court of Appeals. That is one of the advantages of our court system.”
She worries about the unintended consequences of alimony reform, including overburdening the court systems and increasing the cost to taxpayers. “Every time a case is re-litigated, it costs money. Every time a woman and her children seek assistance from the state, it costs money. Who pays? You do,” Troy said.