Litigation

Life Insurance to Secure Alimony Payments

A payee spouse is only entitled to the balance of alimony due after the payor spouse's death and not the entire amount of life insurance carried by the payor spouse to secure the alimony payments. Konczyk v. Konczyk, Docket No. A-5151-02T3, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, March 15, 2004.

The parties' settlement agreement provided that the former husband (the decedent) was required to pay the former wife $200 per month for 5 years and thereafter $100 per month until the former wife's 65th birthday. During the period that the former husband was required to pay $200 per month, he was required to maintain a life insurance policy in the sum of $20,000 to secure his alimony obligation to his former wife. The agreement further provided that after the alimony sum decreased to $100 per month, the husband was required to maintain a life insurance policy in the sum of $15,000 until his alimony obligation was fulfilled on the wife's 65th birthday. The husband died owing the wife $2000 (20 months of alimony). Before the husband's death, he changed the beneficiary of the policy from the former wife to the parties' two adult children. The former wife filed a motion seeking the entire $15,000 in life insurance, and the children filed a motion arguing that the former wife was only entitled to the $2000 balance due to her. The trial court held that the former wife was only entitled to $2000. Although the issue had never been decided in New Jersey, the court held that in other jurisdictions where life insurance is used to secure a limited alimony obligation, and the amount owed at the time of the payor's death exceeds the obligation, the payee spouse is entitled only to the balance of the obligation due and not to the entire life insurance proceeds. The appellate court affirmed, stating that the former wife was not entitled to any more than the amount of alimony the decedent would have been obligated to pay had he lived.

Modification of Child Support

Public policy and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) may supercede a choice of law provision in a marital settlement agreement regarding the issue of child support. Crosby v. Grooms, A100718, Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, Feb. 26, 2004.

The parties were divorced in Idaho in 1996, where they entered into a marital settlement agreement that stated all matters between the parties would be governed under Idaho law. Thereafter, the former husband relocated to California and the former wife relocated with the parties' three minor children to Oregon. The parties' settlement agreement provided that the former husband was obligated to pay $500 per month in child support for the three minor children, which was less than the Idaho guideline amount of $584 per month. Also in 1996, the Family Support Division of Humbolt County, California (where the husband relocated) registered the Idaho support order with the California Superior Court. In 2001, the Family Support Division filed a motion to modify child support and to request a finding that Humbolt County had exclusive jurisdiction over the issue of child support. The former husband consented to California jurisdiction, but argued that the Idaho guidelines should be followed pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement. The court disagreed, holding that California guidelines were the appropriate standard and order the former husband to pay $1545 per month for the three children. The appellate court affirmed. It held that California guidelines were appropriate because under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), Idaho only had continuing jurisdiction as long as the parties or the children continued to reside there. In this case, because both parties and the minor children had relocated to different states, and the support obligation was registered in California, Idaho no longer had jurisdiction over the child support issues. The court further held that regardless of the Idaho choice of law provision in the parties' settlement agreement, the special nature of child support obligations allows public policy to preempt any choice of law provision in a marital settlement agreement.

Life Insurance to Secure Alimony Payments

A payee spouse is only entitled to the balance of alimony due after the payor spouse's death and not the entire amount of life insurance carried by the payor spouse to secure the alimony payments. Konczyk v. Konczyk, Docket No. A-5151-02T3, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, March 15, 2004.

The parties' settlement agreement provided that the former husband (the decedent) was required to pay the former wife $200 per month for 5 years and thereafter $100 per month until the former wife's 65th birthday. During the period that the former husband was required to pay $200 per month, he was required to maintain a life insurance policy in the sum of $20,000 to secure his alimony obligation to his former wife. The agreement further provided that after the alimony sum decreased to $100 per month, the husband was required to maintain a life insurance policy in the sum of $15,000 until his alimony obligation was fulfilled on the wife's 65th birthday. The husband died owing the wife $2000 (20 months of alimony). Before the husband's death, he changed the beneficiary of the policy from the former wife to the parties' two adult children. The former wife filed a motion seeking the entire $15,000 in life insurance, and the children filed a motion arguing that the former wife was only entitled to the $2000 balance due to her. The trial court held that the former wife was only entitled to $2000. Although the issue had never been decided in New Jersey, the court held that in other jurisdictions where life insurance is used to secure a limited alimony obligation, and the amount owed at the time of the payor's death exceeds the obligation, the payee spouse is entitled only to the balance of the obligation due and not to the entire life insurance proceeds. The appellate court affirmed, stating that the former wife was not entitled to any more than the amount of alimony the decedent would have been obligated to pay had he lived.

Modification of Child Support

Public policy and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) may supercede a choice of law provision in a marital settlement agreement regarding the issue of child support. Crosby v. Grooms, A100718, Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, Feb. 26, 2004.

The parties were divorced in Idaho in 1996, where they entered into a marital settlement agreement that stated all matters between the parties would be governed under Idaho law. Thereafter, the former husband relocated to California and the former wife relocated with the parties' three minor children to Oregon. The parties' settlement agreement provided that the former husband was obligated to pay $500 per month in child support for the three minor children, which was less than the Idaho guideline amount of $584 per month. Also in 1996, the Family Support Division of Humbolt County, California (where the husband relocated) registered the Idaho support order with the California Superior Court. In 2001, the Family Support Division filed a motion to modify child support and to request a finding that Humbolt County had exclusive jurisdiction over the issue of child support. The former husband consented to California jurisdiction, but argued that the Idaho guidelines should be followed pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement. The court disagreed, holding that California guidelines were the appropriate standard and order the former husband to pay $1545 per month for the three children. The appellate court affirmed. It held that California guidelines were appropriate because under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), Idaho only had continuing jurisdiction as long as the parties or the children continued to reside there. In this case, because both parties and the minor children had relocated to different states, and the support obligation was registered in California, Idaho no longer had jurisdiction over the child support issues. The court further held that regardless of the Idaho choice of law provision in the parties' settlement agreement, the special nature of child support obligations allows public policy to preempt any choice of law provision in a marital settlement agreement.