http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2016/01/ex-husband_seeks_to_terminate_alimony_to_ex-wife_w.html
MORRISTOWN — When is a couple formally living together, and when are they just dating?
A family division judge in Superior Court in Morristown must decide that issue in the case of a Mendham Township man who is seeking to terminate his alimony obligation to his former wife. She lives in a separate house in Mendham Township and has a boyfriend who she says live elsewhere. Her ex-husband insists they are, in effect, living together.
William and Yvonne Kloehn, both now in their 50s, were divorced in 2007 after 22 years of marriage and he has been paying alimony to her ever since, according to attorneys.
However, following the enactment of New Jersey’s Alimony Reform Act in September 2014 — which clarified several areas and gave payers, typically husbands, additional rights — William Kloehn’s attorney, Thomas Snyder, has been pressing his battle to terminate alimony, because the ex-wife has a boyfriend.
Snyder contends the pair are living together, or are engaged in “cohabitation,” under the legal term, so his client should no longer have to pay alimony.
Yvonne Kloehn’s attorney, John Murray, says the pair have been dating regularly since 2008 and see each other about three times a week.
But they have separate residences and don’t share household chores or finances, Murray says, so she should keep receiving the alimony.
Murray said the case is “worrisome” because if the ex-husband wins the battle, that would effectively bar divorced women in their 50s and 60s from dating, for fear they would lose their alimony.
The new law expanded and clarified the definition of “cohabitation,” or living together. Proof of cohabitation allows a payer to stop paying alimony.
Under the new law, a judge must consider eight factors in determining whether living together, or “cohabitation” is occurring, which include intertwined finances, sharing of living expenses and household chores, and recognition of the relationship in the couple’s family and social circles.
The new law says that a judge may find there is cohabitation even if the couple is not living together in the same home full-time.
Arguing for termination of alimony on Wednesday before Judge Maritza Berdote Byrne, Snyder said he filed his original motion back in 2008 and filed another motion after the new law was passed.
The alimony could be terminated now based on both the old law and the new law, according to Snyder, who worked with many others to develop the new law as chairman of the New Jersey Bar Association’s family law section.
Yvonne Kloehn has made “no financial disclosure whatsoever” regarding the boyfriend, and “must show she is still dependent,” Snyder said, arguing the old law would make her ineligible for alimony.
As for how the new law would make her ineligible, Snyder cited a public Internet post in which Yvonne Kloehn and her boyfriend announced they joined the Park Avenue Club in Florham Park together, as a couple, indicating their family and friends are aware they are a couple.
There are also photos, emails, text messages and shared vacations that indicate “cohabitation,” Snyder said.
“This is not a casual dating relationship,” Snyder said.
The ex-wife’s attorney, Murray, accused Snyder of “far-reaching speculation,” saying he has shown nothing to establish they are living together.
William Kloehn “will stop at nothing to terminate her support,” Murray added, saying Yvonne Kloehn has no job and no means of supporting herself other than alimony. William Kloehn is chief executive officer of JCRA Financial, a consulting company.
The alimony payments to Yvonne Kloehn originally totaled $25,000 a month, Murray said, but they were reduced to $10,000 in 2009 after William Kloehn lost his previous job in the financial industry during the 2008 economic downturn.
The couple has two children, 19 and 22, and Kloehn paid $12,500 a month in child support until 2009, when that was reduced to $3,000, Murray said.
The boyfriend has filed legal certifications saying he lives with his disabled brother in a separate residence and prefers having his “own space,” Murray said.
Also, Yvonne Kloehn has filed certifications that she owns her own house and pays her own bills, Murray added. She does not have to provide the detailed financial papers sought by Snyder unless the judge determines there is a provable case, he contended.
Murray said he doubts whether the new standards for living together could be used retroactively, but even if they could, they would not apply.
“There has been no showing of joint responsibilities or intertwined finances,” Murray said, adding that the closest thing to proof was that the couple once split the $300 cost to host a party and they have attended weddings and funerals together.
Judge Byrne said she expects to issue a written decision sometime next week.
Byrne and the attorneys pointed out that a number of ex-spouses have been seeking to terminate their alimony payments based on the cohabitation rules and other features of the new law.
—-
Divorced – 2007
25K per month until 2009 = $600,000
2009-present 10K per month = $720,000
Total in Alimony so far = $1.32 MILLION
Here is my question…this woman isn’t working and has made no effort to obtain a marketable skill. What is a reasonable amount of time for Alimony for a long term marriage and what is a reasonable amount where a person can be supported until they obtain a marketable skill and get a job?
My take: about $40K per year, for 4 years. Keep in mind this woman also got half of all community property as well as a large amount of child support money $12,500 per month until 2009 and $3K per month from 2009 until present. No doubt she spent that money on the children, right? (She doesn’t pay taxes on Child support money, the Ex does)
Prefer Peace to Piece 4 years ago.
