Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ianneillo v. Ianneillo

October 16, 2009

STEPHEN IANNEILLO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
FRIEDA IANNEILLO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery Division, Family Part, FM-09-2193-06.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted September 15, 2009

Before Judges Grall and Lewinn.

Plaintiff Stephen Ianneillo appeals from an order enforcing his permanent alimony obligation to defendant Frieda Ianneillo, awarding defendant counsel fees on the motion and denying his cross-motion for a reduction of alimony. Because plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of changed circumstances warranting the relief he requested, we affirm.

These are the pertinent and undisputed facts. Plaintiff and defendant married in August 1970. Their two children were born before January 1975. When plaintiff filed his complaint for divorce in 2006 and defendant filed her counterclaim, the parties were both fifty-three years of age and their children were emancipated.

The Ianneillos were able to resolve the economic issues incidental to their divorce. Consequently, on March 26, 2007, they executed a property settlement agreement which the court incorporated in their dual final judgment of divorce.

The Ianneillos agreed to permanent alimony in the amount of $10,000 per year payable in bi-monthly installments. They specified that the amount was based upon plaintiff's earning about $92,000 per year and defendant's earning about $44,000 per year. They further acknowledged, "both parties are gainfully employed and are capable of supporting themselves and can maintain a reasonably comparable lifestyle as that acquired [sic] during the marriage based upon the financial terms set forth in [the] Agreement." Plaintiff agreed to maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of $100,000 designating defendant as the sole beneficiary to guarantee his alimony obligation, and defendant agreed that he could reduce the benefit amount by $5000 every year. The Ianneillos agreed to divide the proceeds of the sale of their marital residence, $215,222.14 equally.

Finally, the Ianneillos had an understanding about counsel fees and costs on subsequent motions to enforce the final judgment. Their agreement provides: "In the event one party breaches a provision of this Agreement and the other party is compelled to seek [c]court intervention for enforcement, the breaching party shall be responsible for the non-breaching party's counsel fees and costs if the non-breaching party is successful on the merits."

Fourteen months after the divorce, on May 19, 2008, plaintiff, who was a senior account manager, and some of his co-workers were notified via conference call that they were being "laid off" effective the following day. Plaintiff collected unemployment compensation for two months while he looked for other work.

Plaintiff did not make the alimony payment due on May 15, 2008. Instead, he told defendant he had lost his job. In June he wrote to defendant urging her to agree to a termination of alimony in return for his promise to maintain life insurance naming her as the beneficiary in accordance with their final judgment of divorce.

In July 2008, plaintiff accepted work at a salary of $1200 per week, or $62,400 per year. After unsuccessful negotiations through the parties' attorneys, plaintiff paid defendant $1316.47 to cover alimony payments due from May 15 through August 15, 2008. The amount of the payment reflects plaintiff's unilateral decision to reduce the bi-weekly payment after May 15 from the $416.66 required by the judgment to $300.05. Thereafter, defendant moved to enforce the judgment, and plaintiff filed his cross-motion for modification.

Beyond asserting that his employment search was diligent and that the responsibilities and duties of his new job were comparable to those of his former job, plaintiff provided no information about his efforts to obtain comparable work and pay or the terms and conditions of his employment. He submitted a pay stub reflecting the salary paid for his first six weeks on the job.

The case information statement and tax return plaintiff submitted in support of his cross-motion reflect that he remarried in 2007. The tax return also indicates that his present wife is in the business of refinishing furniture and deducts operating expenses for use of their home in calculating her profits and loss from that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.