Was This Extraordinary Demand for Increased Child Support Approved?

In determining child support awards, the court reviews many factors. Meanwhile, a change in circumstances sometimes justifies an increase or decrease in payments. Most recently, the court decided a case involving an extraordinary demand for increased child support. You may be interested in learning what made it so outside the norm.

Rule 5:6A of the New Jersey Court Rules provides valuable insight concerning the use of Child Support Guidelines in establishing or modifying child support. Both parents supply the court with documentation concerning their income and expenditures. Among other things, the list of requested in also includes:

·     Child Support Orders for Other Dependents

·     Alimony Payments

·     Number of Overnight Visits with Each Parent

·     Child’s Share of Health Insurance Premium

In the meantime, courts may disregard the use of the Child Support Guidelines in awarding child support. The final order explains the reason for the deviation. For example, in high-income divorce cases, the court uses its discretion in adding to the minimum basis support awards found in the Schedule of Child Support Awards.

Mother Requested Increased Child Support

The New Jersey Appellate Division decided the matter of Ianniello v. Pizzo on June 7, 2019. The opinion notes that the opinion shall “not constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.” That said, the information that applies to the parties may mirror your situation in some regard.

According to the case history, Jennifer M. Pizzo and Joseph R. Ianniello married in 2000. They have two sons, born in 2004 and 2008. The parties divorced in April 2011.

When their divorce concluded, the court incorporated the marital settlement agreement “MSA” signed by the parties. Some of the relevant provisions of the MSA included:

·     Equitable distribution of Joseph’s stock options valued at $5.5M

·     Six years of limited duration alimony at $10K payable to Jennifer

·     Child supports paid by Joseph to Jennifer in the amount of $10K monthly

Notably, the MSA contained no provision that the alimony would end if Jennifer remarried. Following the divorce, she did so and gave birth to another child with her new husband. She is a stay-at-home mom, and her tax returns showed over $1.5M in unearned income in 2016.

High Income Divorce Matter

In the year of the divorce, Joseph’s income was $14M. This amount more than doubled in 2014 when Joseph showed earnings of $31M. Joseph works as a high-level executive at a large corporation. He also remarried.

The court opinion provides additional information concerning the formerly married couple’s assets post-divorce. Jennifer lives in a $2.6M home in Harrison, NY. Joseph owns a $6.1M condominium in New York City. His job affords him many amenities, including use of a private jet, stock options, and use of a multi-million-dollar residence in California.

In 2016, Jennifer petitioned the court to increase Joseph’s child support obligations from $10K to $75K monthly. That year, Joseph’s reported income was $19M. Jennifer also wanted to further modify the MSA regarding a number of other issues related to the children’s expenses. She also requested the court to order Joseph to pay for a $20M life insurance policy on his life.

Although Jennifer claimed that the increase in Joseph’s income represented a change in circumstances, Joseph felt there was another issue. After all, it seemed no coincidence that Jennifer would soon stop receiving alimony under the terms of the marital separation agreement.

During the court proceedings, Joseph admitted that he had the income and resources to pay $75K monthly in child support. However, the trial court stated his position “that no one could provide a reality-based, diligent analysis of a child support demand of $900,000 per year for two children ages [thirteen] and [ten]."

Mother Attempted to Justify Request

Jennifer provided the court with a budget and analysis regarding the children’s prospective monthly expenses. During her testimony, she admitted that a “divorce concierge” assisted her in determining how “unlimited amounts of funds” could help the children enjoy a better lifestyle.

For one, Jennifer wanted to use one-third of the monthly increase to buy a new home. It would be nearly double the size of her current home and give the children a larger yard in which to play. The judge noted that the children live now in a custom-built house that included a "six-figure swimming pool complex." It was unclear why this did not meet the children’s needs.

The judge noted that Jennifer’s proposed child support budget was a “veritable wish list.” In reviewing the requests, the judge observed that calling the items “reasonable needs” was inaccurate. Instead, the court found that "[a]ll of these items are not 'reasonable needs' for a [thirteen] and [ten] year old but are adult-centered activities that would primarily benefit [d]efendant and her [new] husband."

In reviewing the matter under the current allocation for child support, the court found that the “children want for nothing and their needs are being met.” The judge acknowledged that Joseph is not just a 'high-income earner, “he is a 'stratospheric income earner."

Ultimately, the trial court ruled that the $10K monthly award for child support met the children’s reasonable needs. Jennifer did not prove that the children’s needs remained unmet by this allocation. Therefore, the judge denied the request for modification of the support award.

The Appeal

Jennifer appealed how the judge decided the case. The Appellate Division acknowledged that “an existing child support obligation may be modified upon a sufficient "showing of changed circumstances warranting relief."

Meanwhile, the court further confirmed that a showing of a substantial increase in income might represent a change in circumstances. However, there’s something else that bears consideration.

In matters, where the combined net income exceeds the Child Support Guidelines up to $187K, the court uses its discretion in determining the “reasonable needs” of the children. Prior case law also states that it is necessary to find a balance “between reasonable needs, which reflect lifestyle opportunities, while at the same time precluding an inappropriate windfall to the child or even in some cases infringing on the legitimate right of either parent to determine the appropriate lifestyle of a child."

The Appellate Division cites several other cases and the statute regarding the necessary proofs in a case of this type. On appeal, the court deferred to the lower court’s findings concerning Jennifer’s failure to provide evidence that the children’s reasonable needs were unmet. The decision was therefore affirmed, and the child support remained at $10K monthly.

Contact Us

At the Law Offices of Sam Stoia, we provide legal counsel regarding family law matters. This includes representation for post-judgment motions. Contact our office to see how we can help.