What is the key case that analyzes whether a husband’s retirement constitutes a “change in circumstances”?
The key case that analyzes whether a husband’s retirement constitutes a “change in circumstances” is Deegan v. Deegan, 254 N.J. Super. 350 (App. Div. 1992). In the Deegan case, the husband elected an early retirement and then sought to modify his alimony obligations based on a change of circumstances. Mr. Deegan was 60 years old and did physical labor with the steamfitter’s union. He stated that the physical labor required by his job was becoming more difficult because of his age. At the time of the divorce, his ex-wife was given part of the pension and so, under Innes and the statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:23(b), his pension was not a source of income for the purposes of alimony. What caused Mr. Deegan’s petition for a reduction was the fact that the union had offered him an attractive lump sum buy-out option of his pension. This frequently happens in the industry as companies want to reduce staff and cut expenses. Mr. Deegan advised the court that he had taken the $189,000 lump sum pension pay
