Family law practitioners everywhere have lauded the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision last year in Cardali v. Cardali for providing a ‘Big Win for Clarity’ on cohabitation cases and the burden that must be met before a plenary hearing is ordered. However, the Cardali decision did much more than that. It also provided a methodology for trial courts to handle other post-judgment issues.

In family law, many issues arise after the entry of a judgment of divorce. Alimony, child support, custody, and parenting time are always subject to modification based on a change in circumstances. Various provisions of a judgment may not be followed, or there may be a disagreement over what the language in a settlement agreement requires one party to do. Thus, judges are often faced with “post-judgment” motions seeking enforcement, modification, suspension, or termination of a provision(s) of the judgment of divorce or settlement agreement. These issues often result in the trial court making an all-or-nothing decision on the motion or the entry of an order setting a “plenary hearing” or trial.

This is what happened in Cardali. After the parties’ divorce, the husband filed a post-judgment motion seeking to terminate his alimony payments to his former wife based upon her cohabitation with a new partner. The trial court denied his motion. Appeals ensued, and the New Jersey Supreme Court heard the matter. The court provided helpful guidance to balance the alimony payor’s interest in ending the alimony payments if the payee was really cohabitating and the payee’s interest in privacy since the parties are divorced. That balance came in the form of a new process to be used by trial court judges when faced with these often very fact-specific issues on a motion. In alimony termination motions, the alimony payor provides some evidence of cohabitation; the parties get to engage in discovery. Then, after discovery is completed, each party is to submit an updated certification with all the additional evidence they have found to support their position: to terminate or not to terminate alimony. Upon reviewing the updated certifications, the court may render a decision without a plenary hearing or may direct the matter to a plenary hearing.

This new process is entirely practical. Previously, judges faced an “all or nothing” decision, either denying the motion or ordering discovery and a plenary hearing. The first often resulted in a denial of justice, and the second created more judicial backlog and increased costs for litigants. Now, courts have a middle ground in which the parties can obtain additional evidence to better present their position while still potentially avoiding a costly plenary hearing.

This process need not only be applied to motions seeking to terminate alimony based upon cohabitation. Any number of motions would benefit from such a practical process, such as:

1. Motions where a party alleges a change in income should lead to modification of alimony;
2. Motions where a party is attempting to retire and cease paying alimony;
3. Motions where a party alleges a change in income should lead to modification of alimony;
4. Motions seeking college contribution;
5. Motions where a party alleges a change in circumstances warranting modification of parenting time;

I am sure even more motions could benefit from the practicality of the process set forth by the court in Cardali. Hopefully, trial courts will entertain such a process in their cases. It would shift post-judgment motions away from the current “all or nothing” approach and allow litigants to obtain additional evidence in the right cases. Not every case will be entitled to discovery. However, permitting a litigant to engage in discovery without always allowing a plenary hearing will inevitably lead to courts with better evidence to support a decision made on the motion. It also can avoid the costs of such a plenary hearing if the right evidence is provided. Litigants and the court are better off with better decisions and potentially less trial time.

Ultimately, of course, every case is fact-specific and determining how to approach each case requires a careful analysis of your own facts and circumstances. If you have a post-judgment matter that could benefit from these arguments, please do not hesitate to set up a consultation with our Family Law Team so that we can provide you with the appropriate advice.