Increasing the Length of Limited Duration Alimony

The general rule is that the term of limited duration alimony cannot be extended without “unusual circumstances.” A recent Appellate Division opinion, Rothfeld v. Rothfeld, A-510-06T3, illustrated what type of unusual circumstances might justify increasing the length of a limited duration alimony award. 

The Rothfelds were married for less than seven years when they got divorced. They had two small children who were 6 and 4 at the time of the divorce. Both parties were also practicing attorneys. However, Mrs. Rothfeld stopped practicing law after giving birth to their first child. The birth of the couple’s first child occurred within the first year of the marriage. During the divorce negotiations, the parties negotiated a property settlement agreement (PSA) and Mrs. Rothfeld was designated as having residential custody of the two children. The father was granted standard visitation. The wife was granted a limited duration alimony award in the amount of $500 per week for a period of four years. Additionally, Mr. Rothfeld was required to pay $500 per week in child support and child care-related expenses.

During the divorce negotiations, it was anticipated that Mrs. Rothfeld would be able to obtain part-time employment or per diem work in the practice of law. Moreover, during the divorce negotiations, the parties’ oldest child was having difficulties with school, and he was being examined for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Ultimately, he was diagnosed with ADD, Asperger’s, obsessive compulsive disorder, and a bipolar disorder. As a result of her son’s special needs, Mrs. Rothfeld was not able to obtain employment in the legal field.

Based on these hardships, Mrs. Rothfeld filed a motion to extend the length of her limited duration alimony award. Mrs. Rothfeld argued to the court that she was unable to obtain significant employment as was contemplated at the time of the divorce. Therefore, Mrs. Rothfeld filed a motion to request a continuation of her limited duration alimony, an increase in the amount of alimony, and the production of financial information, or in the alternative an increase in child support and the establishment of a fund for their son’s medical care.

The family court denied Mrs. Rothfeld’s application in its entirety. Thereafter, Mrs. Rothfeld appealed to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division reversed the case and remanded  back to the family court. The Appellate Court held that an award of limited duration alimony may be modified based either upon changed circumstances or upon the nonoccurrence of circumstances that the court found would occur at the time of the award. The Rothfeld court further held that a court may modify the amount of such an award, but shall not modify the length of the terms except in unusual circumstances. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(c).

In this case, the court found that the wife had established a change of circumstance for an increase in the amount of limited duration alimony, as well as an increase in the term based upon unusual circumstances. The unusual circumstances in this case were held to be the health of the parties’ eldest child. The court further explained in its unpublished opinion that a modification to the time for payment of limited duration alimony, as well as the amount, would only be based upon an ability to prove changed circumstances, or upon the nonoccurrence of circumstances that the court found would occur at the time of the award. Thus, the burden is upon the party making the application (i.e., the recipient spouse) that circumstances have changed such that a modification is necessary and just. Here, the child’s condition was far worse than anyone anticipated at the time of the divorce and Mrs. Rothfeld simply could not work as contemplated when the matter was settled.

In summary, the Rothfeld case is a very important one. This case gives more “ammo” to a recipient spouse who wants to extend the length of a limited duration alimony award. If a recipient spouse has fallen on hard times, and if there are unusual circumstances, she may have a decent chance of success in a motion to extend the length of limited duration alimony. If a recipient spouse should become ill, this certainly may constitute grounds to seek more alimony. If the parties’ children should also become ill, there may also be a reasonable ground to seek more alimony. If a recipient spouse gets laid off from a job, there may also may be a solid reason. Nonetheless, a main theme of New Jersey family court law is that “nothing is written in stone.” If a recipient spouse is “down on her luck” and if the case has “unusual circumstances,” there may be an opening to request more alimony. Just what constitutes “unusual circumstances” is the million dollar question. Some judges may liberally interpret this legal standard, while other judges may interpret the legal standard very strictly and simply choose to enforce the limited alimony terms as enunciated in the original agreement.