Lepis v. Lepis
1980 N.J. LEXIS 1357, 416 A.2d 45, 83 N.J. 139 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Alimony and child support provisions in both consensual separation agreements and judicial decrees are subject to modification upon a showing of 'changed circumstances.' A party seeking modification must make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances that have substantially impaired their ability to support themselves or the children at the standard of living established during the marriage before being entitled to discovery of the other spouse's finances.
Facts:
- The husband and wife were married in 1961 and had three children.
- The parties divorced in 1974, incorporating a detailed property and support agreement into the final judgment.
- Under the agreement, the husband was to pay the wife $120 per week in alimony and $210 per week in child support.
- The agreement specified that changes in either party's income or the wife's earnings would not be a basis for modifying support.
- The agreement also stated it could only be modified by a written instrument voluntarily executed by both parties.
- Four years after the divorce, the wife's financial needs and the children's expenses had increased, due in part to significant inflation and the children getting older.
Procedural Posture:
- On February 1, 1978, the wife filed a motion in the Superior Court, Chancery Division (trial court) to modify the support and alimony provisions of the divorce agreement and to compel production of the husband's tax returns.
- The trial court denied the wife's motion for both modification and discovery.
- The wife appealed the trial court's denial to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court, holding that discovery of the husband's income should have been ordered, and it remanded the case for further proceedings.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted the husband's petition for certification to review the Appellate Division's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party seeking to modify alimony and child support provisions of a divorce agreement make a sufficient prima facie showing of 'changed circumstances' to warrant discovery of their ex-spouse's finances by demonstrating increased needs due to inflation and the maturation of their children?
Opinions:
Majority - Pashman, J.
Yes. A party seeking modification makes a sufficient prima facie showing of 'changed circumstances' by demonstrating that increased needs, due to factors like inflation and the maturation of children, have substantially impaired their ability to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. The court’s equitable power to modify support obligations applies equally to consensual agreements and judicial decrees. The prior, higher standard of 'unconscionability' for modifying agreements is rejected in favor of a uniform 'changed circumstances' standard that assesses what is equitable and fair. Procedurally, a party must first make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances demonstrating a substantial impairment of their ability to support themselves. Once this threshold is met, it establishes good cause for the court to order discovery of the other spouse's finances, such as tax returns, to assess their ability to pay.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark in New Jersey family law, unifying the standard for modifying support obligations. By rejecting the stricter 'unconscionability' standard for consensual agreements, the court prioritized equity and the dependent spouse's right to maintain the marital standard of living over rigid contract principles. The case establishes a crucial two-step procedural framework that balances the need for modification against the risk of harassing discovery. This 'Lepis hearing' framework requires a movant to first establish a prima facie case of changed circumstances, creating a gatekeeping function that prevents frivolous motions while ensuring meritorious claims can proceed to discovery and a potential hearing.
