Padwee v. Padwee

• Decision Date: 23 March 1950
• Docket Number: No. A--216,A--216
• Citation: Padwee v. Padwee, 7 N.J.Super. 101, 72 A.2d 213 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1950)
• Parties: PADWEE v. PADWEE.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 101

7 N.J.Super. 101

72 A.2d 213

PADWEE v. PADWEE.

No. A--216.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued March 13, 1950.

Decided March 23, 1950.

Samuel Levin, Newark, argued the cause for the appellant.

Ira D. Dorian, Newark, argued the cause for the respondent (Benjamin D. Braelow, Newark, attorney).

Before Judges JACOBS, EASTWOOD and JAYNE.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

JACOBS, S.J.A.D.

In 1948 the parties were divorced by decree which awarded alimony and custody of their infant child to the plaintiff. Thereafter, application was made for modification of the decree and a Master was appointed to conduct appropriate examination. The Master's report indicated that the needs of the plaintiff were in excess of $25 per week; the earnings of the defendant as an employee of the City of Newark were approximately $54 per week; the defendant also operated an animal hospital, where he and his present wife reside, but this business was being conducted at a loss although the defendant expected that since the 'Summer months are the best business months' he would 'at least break even if not make some money'. On July 15, 1949 the Advisory Master entered an Order which directed the defendant to pay plaintiff the aggregate sum of $27 per week of which $10 was for her support, $15 was for the support of the child, and $2 was to be applied to arrears.

On December 9, 1949 the defendant filed notice that he would apply for an Order reducing the amount payable to plaintiff for support and submitted an affidavit which alleged that his salary as an employee of the City of Newark is in effect $53.93 per week and $27 per week thereof has been sent to the plaintiff; his expenses for his private business exceeded his income therefrom and he has 'not been able to make any profit on this business'; he has remarried and has a child nine weeks old; he has been instructed by his physician to move as soon as possible since his 'child is exposed to infections from the diseased cats and dogs'; and, in order to establish a home, it is necessary that he obtain a reduction in the amount payable to the plaintiff for the support of herself and child. In opposition, the plaintiff filed an affidavit which set forth that her only income is the $27 per week payable under the Order of July 15, 1949; it is impossible for her 'to exist under any reduced amount'; and she also relies upon her earlier affidavits in which she stated that she had no family of her own other than a married brother and her child requires her undivided attention. On December 16, 1949 the Advisory Master entered an Order modifying the earlier Order and directing that the defendant pay the sum of $22 per week in lieu of $27 per week, of which $10 was for the support of the plaintiff, $10 was for the support of the child, and $2 was on account of arrears. The present appeal is by the plaintiff from this Order.

The authority of the Advisory Master to reduce the amount payable for support upon...