The not solely “new” upkeep regulation: Questions of retroactive impact stay unanswered

The “new” maintenance law is more than seven years old and still leaves questions unanswered. This includes whether and to what extent the subsections of the Act apply retrospectively. The need for a final standard is most pressing when a dependent litigant files a post-judgment motion seeking to review or modify a maintenance obligation that exists under the law. While a court is endowed with wide discretion and inherent authority to deal with each unique factual situation, the lack of a definitive standard has the unintended effect of perpetuating confusion and litigation between attorneys and judges. Due to space limitations, this article focuses on NJSA 2A:34-23(k), which allows a dependent spouse to request a change in maintenance. In particular, it addresses whether subsection (k) can be applied retrospectively to cases decided or settled before the 2014 changes to the law.

Subsection (k) provides that a trial court, in deciding whether to amend a debtor’s alimony, should consider the following factors:

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please proceed to their websites.

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are the third-party online providers of ALM’s broad collection of current and archived versions of its legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers can access and use content from ALM, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, Corporate Counsel, and other sources of legal information.

For questions, call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]