And I thought Florida was bad...

Here is a case in New Jersey, where the husband is ordered to pay ~$1,000 per month in indefinite alimony (he's also paying about 1k in child support as well) and finds his ex wife has been cohabitating since 2005 with her boyfriend. She also had a baby for the guy. Since the guy is casually attached to the work force, the two of them had been living on the ex husbands alimony and child support checks.

So Mr. Deep pockets goes to court to ask for a modification----and is denied!!??! Stevie Wonder can see how this guy is being taken advantage of. So, he spends the big bucks (20k?) to appeal the decision.

The New Jersey court of appeals rules in his favor--kinda. They reversed and remanded the case back to the lower court for modification of the alimony amount. In other words, they want the lower court to impute an amount of money that the ex wife would be paying to contribute to the boyfriends support and deduct that from the amount Mr. Deep pockets is paying her.

Why not just end the alimony? Obviously she's living her life. Why is this guy compelled to support her in it?

The one thing I like about this case is the guy had the balls to appeal based on the violation of his rights under the 13th amendment to the Constitution.

Here is an excerpt:

"THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION CONDEMNS DEFENDANT TO AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IN VIOLATION OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

THE TRIAL COURT'S RELIANCE UPON [EX-WIFE'S] TESTIMONY WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR. [EX-WIFE'S] TESTIMONY WAS PATENTLY FALSE AND SO MANIFESTLY UNSUPPORTED BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCES TO OFFEND THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

THE COHABITATION ARRANGEMENT IN THIS CASE IS THE "FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A MARRIAGE" REQUIRING TERMINATION OF ALIMONY. TO PROVIDE OTHERWISE IS VIOLATIVE OF PUBLIC POLICY AND PREJUDICIAL ERROR.

(EX-WIFE'S] CONDUCT IN SECRETING HER RELATIONSHIP AND PREGNANCY, WHILE DEMANDING ENFORCEMENT OF THE ALIMONY ORDER, CONSTITUTES "EGREGIOUS AND OUTRAGEOUS"
CONDUCT. IT IS NEITHER FAIR, EQUITABLE NOR JUST TO CONTINUE ALIMONY GIVEN SUCH CONDUCT."

Of course there was no mention of action against the ex wife for hiding the pregnancy and the fact that the boyfriend was living with her (while defending her position to continue to receive alimony). She gets a pass.

These judges are morons.

Read about it here.