Guide to "Family Law" in New Jersey

Paul G. Kostro, Esq.

 

 ▲Return to General Topic Index
◄Return to Previous Page

Rehabilitative Alimony

  1. As stated in Cox v. Cox, 335 N.J. Super. 465 (App. Div. 2000), rehabilitative alimony permits a short-term award from one party in a divorce to enable the former spouse to complete the preparation necessary for economic self-sufficiency, and ceases when the dependent spouse is in a position of self-support. Rehabilitative alimony thus represents an appropriate remedy where, for example, a spouse who gave up or postponed her or his own education to support the household requires a lump sum or a short-term award to achieve economic self-sufficiency. Its purpose is to enhance and improve the earning capacity of the economically dependant spouse. The focus of rehabilitative alimony is upon the ability of a dependant spouse to engage in gainful employment, combined with the length of the marriage, the age of the parties, and the spouse's ability to regain a place in the workplace. It is not to be considered an exclusive remedy, as rehabilitative alimony in addition to permanent alimony is favored, where appropriate.

  2. Law Lessons from Ettinger v. Ettinger (App. Div.; Docket No. A-1862-04T5; Decided October 19, 2005):

    Under appropriate circumstances, an award of rehabilitative alimony can be converted to an award of permanent alimony, where there is "no reasonable likelihood . . . [that the moving party will] be able to achieve economic self-sufficiency in the future." Milner v. Milner, 288 N.J. Super. 209, 216 (App. Div. 1996).

    Changed circumstances are necessary to justify a change in alimony. See Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 151 (1980); Milner v. Milner, 288 N.J Super. 209, 214; N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(d).


  3. Law Lessons from Schwartz v. Schwartz (App. Div., Docket No. A-6948-03T5, November 2, 2005, not approved for publication):

    An award of rehabilitative alimony is designed to enable a dependent spouse "to complete the preparation necessary for economic self-sufficiency." Hill v. Hill, 91 N.J. 506, 509 (1982) (citing Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980)). Alimony payments cease once the dependent spouse has attained the ability to support oneself. Hughes v. Hughes, 311 N.J. Super. 15, 31 (App. Div. 1998). Rehabilitative alimony should be considered in cases where "the marriage is relatively short and the recipient spouse is capable of full employment based on experience, additional training or further education." Heinl v. Heinl, 287 N.J. Super. 337, 348 (App. Div. 1996) (citing Finelli v. Finelli, 263 N.J. Super. 403, 406 (Ch. Div. 1992)).

    Rehabilitative alimony is not an exclusive form of relief and can be combined with other forms of alimony, including limited duration, reimbursement, and permanent. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(f).


  4. Law Lessons from CETIN v. CETIN (App. Div., A-2680-04T2, January 5, 2006, not approved for publication):

    “Rehabilitative alimony shall be awarded based upon a plan in which the payee shows the scope of rehabilitation, the steps to be taken, and the time frame, including a period of employment during which rehabilitation will occur.” N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23d.

    Our courts have awarded rehabilitative alimony when a party may be placed in a self-support economic position, after a period of educational advancement. It is “payable for a specific time period, ceasing when the dependent spouse is in a position of self-support,” Hughes v. Hughes, 311 N.J. Super. 15, 31 (App. Div. 1998), and it permits a spouse “’to complete the preparation necessary for economic self-sufficiency.’” Cox v. Cox, 335 N.J. Super. 465, 474-75 (App. Div. 2000) (quoting Hill v. Hill, 91 N.J. 506, 509 (1982)). “The focus of rehabilitative alimony is upon the ability of the depend[e]nt spouse to engage in gainful employment, combined with the length of the marriage, the age of the parties, and the spouse’s ability to regain a place in the workplace.” Id. at 475 (citations omitted). Typically, the award is appropriate when the marriage is “relatively short and the recipient spouse is capable of full employment based on experience, additional training or further education.” Heinl v. Heinl, 287 N.J. Super. 337, 348 (1996); Finelli v. Finelli, 263 N.J. Super. 403, 406 (Ch. Div. 1992). The court has found insufficient evidence for a rehabilitative alimony award where there was only “casual reference” to the intention to resume studies. Finelli, supra, 263 N.J. Super. at 407. While rehabilitative alimony is warranted where the payee demonstrates the necessary steps, time frame, and scope to rehabilitate the dependent spouse, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23d, a rigid “plan” is not always necessary; the plan need only be reasonable. Wass v. Wass, 311 N.J. Super. 624, 635-36 (Ch. Div. 1998).

    The intention of rehabilitative alimony is to make the dependent spouse self-supporting, Crews, supra, 164 N.J. at 34, and an award would be useless if it did not set out to achieve that goal. See Cox, supra, 335 N.J. Super. at 475 (the purpose of rehabilitative alimony is to “enhance and improve the earning capacity of the economically depend[e]nt spouse”). The court’s authority is not limited to only situations which satisfy subsection “e.” See N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23f (indicating the court has broad discretion to award any kind of alimony that is warranted and just, in light of the circumstances and facts in the case).


  5. Law Lessons from: VIGLIONE v. VIGLIONE (App. Div., A-4096-03T3, March 1, 2006, not approved for publication): Rehabilitative alimony "is payable for a terminable period, a period of time after which it is reasonably anticipated that the former spouse will no longer need support. Crews [v. Crews, 164 N.J. 11, 34 (2003)]." When the dependent spouse is able to demonstrate an inability to achieve the anticipated level of self-sufficiency, rehabilitative alimony may be converted to permanent alimony. Milner v. Milner, 288 N.J. Super. 209 (App. Div. 1996).


  6. Law Lessons from ADAMS v. ADAMS (App. Div., A-3398-04T1, March 13, 2006, not approved for publication):

    Rehabilitative alimony is "payable for a specific time period, ceasing when the dependent spouse is in a position of selfsupport." Hughes v. Hughes, 311 N.J. Super. 15, 31 (App. Div. 1998).


  7. Return to General Topic Index

NOTE: If you believe that ANYTHING on this Webpage is misspelled, incomplete, inaccurate or downright wrong; or if a Link fails to link to its intended Webpage, please send me an Email, expressing your concern or opinion.

Also, please be mindful that THE INFORMATION AND SOURCES PROVIDED HEREIN MAY NOT BE ACCURATE OR COMPLETE -- YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RELYING ON THIS INFORMATION.  No warranties, express or implied, are made regarding the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information.

Also, please be aware that the information on this Webpage DOES NOT constitute LEGAL ADVICE, which advice will only be given in PRIVATE CONSULTATION, after entering into an ATTORNEY / CLIENT RELATIONSHIP, and the execution of a WRITTEN RETAINER AGREEMENT. Also, simply sending to me an email or providing information to me does NOT create an ATTORNEY / CLIENT RELATIONSHIP   -- if you wish to retain me as your attorney or mediator, you are welcome to call me at (908)486-2200, or to Email me, to schedule an appointment.

Links

Linked sites are NOT under the control of the Paul G. Kostro, A Professional Corporation or Paul G. Kostro, Esq. (the "Authors") and the Authors are NOT responsible for the content of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site.

The Authors do NOT endorse websites, companies or entities to which links are provided.

The Authors reserve the right to terminate any link at any time.

If you decide to access any of the third party sites linked to, you do so entirely AT YOUR OWN RISK.

© Paul G. Kostro, Esq. 2005