Horton v. Horton
| Decision Date | 01 April 1987 |
| Parties | James R. HORTON, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Justina L. HORTON, Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Rose Marie C. Schutt, Ridgewood, for plaintiff (Messineo & Messineo, attorneys).
Jack D. Berson, Hackensack, for defendant (Jacoby & Meyers, Jersey City, attorneys).
If a party opts for early retirement at age 56, can such person rely on D'Oro v. D'Oro, 187 N.J.Super. 377, 454 A.2d 915 (Ch.Div.1982), aff'd 193 N.J.Super 385, 474 A.2d 1070 (App.Div.1984), when, 1 1/2 years earlier, and without anticipation of retirement, a Property Settlement Agreement was entered into? This Court answers in the negative.
By way of background, the parties married on February 14, 1969 and divorced on June 15, 1984. A Property Settlement Agreement was entered into giving defendant the marital home and plaintiff his pension, which had an agreed value of $103,000. The Property Settlement Agreement provided further that the plaintiff would pay $110.00 per week as alimony, to be increased to $125.00 per week upon graduation of the youngest daughter then in college. She did graduate in December 1984, and plaintiff has paid $125.00 since.
Plaintiff retired January 1, 1986 and first makes this application to eliminate alimony one year later. No explanation for the delay has been offered.
Plaintiff claims that upon his retirement the concepts of D'Oro v. D'Oro apply. Thus, his pension income, received as equitable distribution, should be eliminated from consideration for alimony purposes, at least until he has received the stipulated value. Consequently, plaintiff states his income is merely $400.00 per month, gross, which will not, admittedly, support alimony payments of $125.00 per week.
Plaintiff's reliance upon D'Oro is misplaced. In that case, it was expressly stated at the trial that the husband intended to retire in several months. In the present case, no such imminent retirement was considered. There was no reason for defendant to consider that plaintiff would not work for the normally anticipated time. No early retirement was anticipated or bargained for. Plaintiff surrendered employment paying some $34,000, at age 55, and now has a pension income of $13,794.36, gross. D'Oro must be limited to its facts. When imminent retirement is anticipated and equitable distribution and alimony are bargained for, or, barring those factors, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Innes v. Innes
...alimony to the extent that post-divorce earnings had enhanced its value. Id. at 545, 526 A.2d 290. However, in Horton v. Horton, 219 N.J.Super. 76, 529 A.2d 1034 (Ch.Div.1987), Judge Krafte, who decided D'Oro, declined to apply that case when the plaintiff-husband took early retirement at a......
-
Deegan v. Deegan
...into play. The exact mechanics of evaluating a voluntary change in circumstances has not been settled. In Horton, Jr. v. Horton, 219 N.J.Super. 76, 529 A.2d 1034 (Ch.Div.1987), an ex-husband sought relief from an alimony obligation after early retirement at age 56, one and one-half-years su......
-
Dilger v. Dilger
...180 (Super.Ct.1989). The only apposite New Jersey decision addressing the issue of early retirement is that of Horton v. Horton, 219 N.J.Super. 76, 529 A.2d 1034 (Ch.Div.1987). There, Judge Krafte held that when defendant voluntarily retired at age 56, one and one-half years after entering ......
-
Stoltman v. Stoltman
...v. Johns, 208 N.J.Super. 733, 506 A.2d 854 (1985); Staver v. Staver, 217 N.J.Super. 541, 526 A.2d 290 (1987); and Horton v. Horton, 219 N.J.Super. 76, 529 A.2d 1034 (1987).3 The trial court stated:"I find, and determine, that it is fair for the court to demand and require payment of alimony......