FAMILY LAW
20-2-5156 Rich v. Rich, App. Div. (per curiam) (14 pp.) Plaintiff Andrew Rich appeals from two post-judgment matrimonial orders. The first denied his request to reduce his alimony obligation to defendant Linda Rich. The second awarded $2,915 in counsel fees and costs to defendant related to the filing of her cross-motion for enforcement of litigant’s rights. The appellate panel affirms. Here, the divorce settlement was negotiated in March 2010, at which time plaintiff stipulated his annual income was $105,000. Plaintiff defaulted on his alimony payments shortly after the divorce was finalized. In this motion, plaintiff reported his 2011 income was approximately $60,000. Plaintiff’s motion lacked the reason for the change in his business ownership and employment and included no evidence he diligently attempted to procure comparable employment and those efforts were unsuccessful. The facts satisfactorily demonstrate the change in financial circumstances, occasioned by plaintiff’s decision to change his employment and transfer his company, was in fact temporary. The panel finds no basis to interfere with the judge’s conclusion to deny relief. As to the award of attorney fees, plaintiff substantially ignored his alimony obligation. He made no payments in one year and accumulated $38,000 in arrearages. Plaintiff also failed to comply with other financial obligations he agreed to accept in the PSA. The entry of the award was a reasoned exercise of judicial discretion.
