The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's

speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you

have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A

Calculating Imputed Income

in Divorce Proceedings Examining Earning Capacity, Income Sources, and

Intent in Spousal and Child Support Determinations

Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2016

Charles F. Vuotto, Jr., Esq., Managing Partner, Tonneman Vuotto Enis & White,

Cedar Knolls, N.J.

Scott Maier, CPA, JD, Partner, Friedman, East Hanover, N.J.

Laura D. Dale, Attorney, Laura Dale & Associates, Houston

Tips for Optimal Quality

Sound Quality

If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality

of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet

connection.

If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial

1-866-961-9091 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please

send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can

address the problem.

If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.

Viewing Quality

To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen,

press the F11 key again.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Continuing Education Credits

In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your

participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance

Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar.

A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you email

that you will receive immediately following the program.

For additional information about continuing education, call us at 1-800-926-7926

ext. 35.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Program Materials

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please

complete the following steps:

• Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-

hand column on your screen.

• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a

PDF of the slides for today's program.

• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.

• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

CALCULATING IMPUTED INCOME IN DIVORCE

PROCEEDINGS EXAMINING EARNING CAPACITY, INCOME SOURCES, AND INTENT

IN SPOUSAL AND CHILD SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS

Webinar Presented by:

Charles F. Vuotto Jr., Esq, Tonneman, Vuotto, Enis & White, LLC

Scott Maier, CPA/ABV, Friedman LLP

Laura D. Dale, Esq. of Laura Dale & Associates, P.C

Mr. Vuotto and Mr. Maier are only licensed in their various disciplines

to practice in New Jersey (and New York for Mr. Maier). Therefore,

the content hereof should not be deemed applicable to any other

jurisdiction. Divorce laws vary from state to state.

Further, the content in this presentation should not be viewed as

legal, accounting or financial advice as to any specific matter, but

rather as a general academic overview of the process and laws

governing divorce in the State of New Jersey.

Lastly, no professional relationship is created by viewing these

visual aids and can only be created by formally retaining the panel

members.

Disclaimer

Copyright 2016 Charles F. Vuotto, Jr., Esq. Tonneman, Vuotto, Enis & White, LLC

6

Imputation of Income Generally

"‘Imputation of income is a discretionary matter not

capable of precise or exact determination[,] but rather

require[es] a trial judge to realistically appraise

capacity to earn and job availability.'"

7

Imputation of Income Generally

"In treating the matter of support, our courts have always

looked beyond the [parent's] claims of limited resources

and economic opportunity. They have gone far to compel a

parent to do what in equity and good conscience should be

done for [the] children.”

8

Imputation of Income Generally

A court has every right to appraise realistically a

defendant's potential earning power and examine potential

earning capacity rather than actual income, when imputing

the ability to pay support.

9

Imputation of Income Generally

• "[O]ne cannot find himself in, and choose to remain in, a

position where he has diminished or no earning capacity

and expect to be relieved of or to be able to ignore the

obligations of support to one's family." Arribi v Arribi, 186

N.J. Super. 116, 118 (Ch. Div. 1982).

10

Imputation of Income Generally:

Earned vs. Unearned Income

• W-2 wages

• Tips

• Professional fees

• 1099 income (active entities)

• Active operating business earnings and cash flow

• Interest income

• Dividend income

• Rental real estate income

• Passive business earnings

• 1099 income (passive entities)

• Retirement account distributions

11

Human Capital

• In New Jersey, courts are authorized to impute income for

the purpose of determining child support when a parent is

found to be voluntarily unemployed or underemployed

without cause.

• A parent's ability to earn income, or "his [or her] human

capital," should be "theoretically activated for the purpose

of evaluating his [or her] support obligation" and the

amount of income that "should be imputed to him [or

her]").

See Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250, 268-70 (2005)

12

How to Impute

from Human Capital (Earned Income) • Earned Income

• W-2 Wages

• 1099 Income

• Tips

• Unreported cash earnings

• Schedule C Income

• “Active” income ownership of Partnerships, S Corporations and LLC’s

• Unemployment (since its in lieu of wages)

• Social Security (deferred earned income)

13

How to impute income:

For Child Support

• A New Jersey Court’s authority to impute income when fixing Child Support is

found first in the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines

(Guidelines).See R. 5:6A (adopting Guidelines set forth in Appendix IX-A to

the Court Rules).

• Factors:

• Voluntariness of employment or underemployment

• Earning capacity using the parent's work history

• Occupational qualifications

• Educational background, and prevailing job opportunities in the region

• Parent’s former income at that person's usual or former occupation

• Average earnings for that parent’s occupation as reported by the New

Jersey Department of Labor (NJDOL)

• Parent's most recent wage or benefit record

14

Major Considerations When Imputing Income to Spouse Who

Has Been Out of the Workforce and/or Caregiver

• Fairness in imputing to spouse who has been out of

workforce for many years.

• Fairness in imputing to caregiver of children

• Age of children

15

Imputing Income for Alimony

The legal concepts of imputation of income for child

support equally apply when establishing a party's obligation

to pay alimony. In fact, in NJ, one of the first lines within the

child support guidelines calculation is alimony paid and/or

received the parties.

16

Imputing Income Due to Career Change

• “In order to obtain a reduction in alimony based on current earnings, an obligor who has selected a new, less lucrative career must establish that the benefits he or she derives from the career change substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the support spouse.” See Storey v. Storey, 373 N.J. Super 464, 468-469 (App. Div. 2004)

• List factors to decide whether career change is reasonable. 1. the reasons for the career change (both the reasons for leaving prior employment

and the reasons for selecting the new job);

2. disparity between prior and present earnings;

3. efforts to find work at comparable pay;

4. the extent to which the new career draws or builds upon education, skills and experience;

5. the availability of work;

6. the extent to which the new career offers opportunities for enhanced earnings in the future;

7. age and health; and

8. the former spouse's need for support.

17

Imputing Income from Self-Employed

Party

• Imputation may also be justified when examining income

reported by self-employed obligors, who control the

means and the method of their earnings.

• Accordingly, "[b]oth when setting child support and in

reaching a proper alimony award, a judge must examine

not only each party's income, but also his or her earning

ability." Gnall, supra, 432 N.J. Super. at 159.

18

Imputing

Income from Investments and Other Assets (Unearned Income)

• The seminal case for imputing income against assets in New Jersey is Aronson v. Aronson, 245 N.J. Super 354 (App.Div. 1991)

• While inheritances are exempt from equitable distribution under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, “income generated by it is no different from income generated by any other asset, exempt or otherwise, for an alimony analysis.” Aronson at 363.

• “While the income or other usufruct from immune assets may not be subject to equitable distribution, such income may be considered as a factor in alimony awards.”

• “Although exempt assets may be inviolable in themselves, the income thrown off by them, like the income generated by a distributed asset, is an entirely different matter.”

• Important to look at the Trusts themselves: • Circumstances of formation

• Whether the spouse is the beneficiary vs. grantor

• Availability of distributions

19

Imputing

Income from Investments and Other Assets

(Unearned Income)

Estimating a Rate of Return Against Under-

Performing Assets

20

Imputing

Income from Investments and Other Assets (Unearned Income)

• Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408 (1999) • Supreme Court of New Jersey was faced with the issue of whether

income should be imputed from a supporting spouse’s under-performing investments for the purpose of determining his or her ability to pay alimony pursuant to an agreement.

• The court indicated “there is no functional difference between imputing income to the supporting spouse earned from employment versus that earned from investment.” Id. at 423.

• The Rate of Return was key issue

• Supreme Court imputed a rate of return based on long-term corporate bonds and that the rate should be based upon Moody's Composite Index on A-rated Corporate Bonds. Id. at 425.

• Court averaged the long-term corporate bond rate of return over the preceding five (5) years and concluded with a 7.7% rate of return. Id.

• At present, the Moody’s Bond Yield Average – A Rated Corporates (5-year average): 4.34% (pre-tax).

21

Imputing

Income from Investments and Other Assets (Unearned Income)

• Overbay v. Overbay, 376 N.J. Super 99 (App. Div. 2005)

• Elderly dependent spouse received various monetary gifts and inheritances during the marriage valued at $1,143,695.

• Trial court imputed income to wife based upon Miller in the amount of 7.4%.

• Appellate Court held that the Miller holding was “fact sensitive”, mostly based upon the fact that Mr. Miller was an experienced investor. Thus, applying the same rate of return to Ms. Overbay was not proper.

• Appellate Court held that when a spouse with under-earning investments has the ability to generate additional earnings--without risk of loss or depletion of principal--but fails to do so, it is fair for a court to impute a more reasonable rate of return to the under-earning assets, comparable to a prudent use of investment capital. Id. at 111.

• While the Appellate Division remanded, it added that “the trial court must first decide whether it is appropriate to impute additional earnings from defendant's inheritance "comparable to a prudent use of [her] investments." If additional earnings are to be imputed, the court must then determine the reasonable amount of additional income to be attributed to defendant. "Once the trial court decides that income should be imputed, the next step is to determine the reasonable amount of income to be imputed to that party."

• The Appellate Court also held that if the trial court determines that defendant's investments provide a prudent balance between investment risk and investment return, then additional income should not be imputed even though a more aggressive investment strategy might provide additional earnings.

• A litigant is not required to put his or her capital at risk, or to jeopardize his or her inheritance, by pursuing an investment strategy that is neither reasonable nor prudent. Id. at 112-113.

22

Imputing

Income from Investments and Other Assets (Unearned

Income)

Overbay Factors 1. Expert testimony of a financial planner

2. Age

3. Health problems

4. Employment income

5. Risk tolerance

6. Desire to preserve capital

7. Manner in which party investable assets had been invested during the marriage and its historical rate of return, or

8. the availability of appropriate alternative investment options."

23

Imputing

Income from Investments and Other Assets (Unearned Income)

• How to determine what is a prudent investment strategy for purposes of imputing income?

• Consult with a forensic accountant

• Consult with a financial planner

• Consider the type of investment vehicle

• Analyze the spouse’s needs (include considerations for inflation)

• Analyze what risks the spouse is willing to take to earn a higher rate of return?

• What is a realistic expected rate of return?

24

How to Impute Income:

Income from Investments and Other Assets

(Unearned Income)

Estimating a Rate of Return – Based on Risk

Asset Classes

Average Rates of

Return (Pre-tax) Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

Least Risk US Treasury Bills (12 month) ( 1) 0.01% 20.0% 10% 2.5%

Intermediate-term Government Bonds (5-year) ( 1) 1.76% 18.0% 10% 3.5%

Intermediate-term Municipal Bonds ( 1) ( 2 ) 2.43% 15.0% 10% 4.0%

Long-term Government Bonds ( 1) 2.68% 13.0% 10% 6.0%

Long-term A Rated Corporate Bonds ( 1) 4.40% 10.0% 10% 8.0%

Large Company Stocks ( 3 ) 10.00% 8.0% 10% 10.0%

Low-cap Stocks ( 3 ) 11.40% 6.0% 10% 13.0%

Mid-cap Stocks ( 3 ) 11.00% 4.0% 10% 15.0%

Micro-cap Stocks ( 3 ) 11.50% 3.5% 10% 18.0%

Highest Risk Small Company Stocks ( 3 ) 12.00% 2.5% 10% 20.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Average Rate of Return 4.10% 6.72% 9.27%

(1) Based upon US department of Treasury returns as of December 31, 2015.

(2) Municipal bonds are tax-free, 2.43% is the tax equivalent yield assuming 28% Federal Income Tax.

(3)

* As of 6/7/2016, the Moody’s Bond Yield Average – A Rated Corporates (5-year average): 4.34%

Risk Scenarios Based Upon Weighting

Based upon Duff and Phelps 2016 Yearbook Summary Statistics of Annual Total Returns of Basic US Asset

Classes average for 1926-2015 data.

25

How to Impute Income:

Income from Investments and Other Assets

(Unearned Income)

• Interest/dividends

• Bank accounts

• Investment

accounts/instruments

• Stocks and bonds

26

How to Impute Income:

Income from Investments and Other Assets

(Unearned Income)

• Passive Activities

• Rental real estate

income

• Royalties income

• IRA distributions

27

How to Impute Income:

Imputation of Income from Businesses

• Business Owners • Income based on net

cash flow

• Perquisites

• Excess Earnings

• Reasonable compensation

• K-1 Distributions

• Retained earnings (Accumulated Adjustments Account)

• Pass-through Income

28

How to Impute Income:

Imputation of Income from Businesses Pass Through Income

• Various undistributed “phantom” or “pass-through” income of a business that has been retained by a corporation for corporate purposes does not constitute income for the purposes of support when it is utilized by the business to maintain corporate operations and is not available to a shareholder-spouse to satisfy financial obligations imposed upon dissolution of marriage.

• Conversely, when pass-through income of a business is available to a shareholder-spouse and has been utilized as income to support the family throughout the marriage, there is a strong argument in favor of including it as gross income.

• A business owner who historically took a draw from the corporate income and relied on the “pass-through” income to support the marital lifestyle, then that pass-through income is properly included in the calculation of gross income.

Computation of cash flow usually begins with income as reported on the Form 1040 and adjustments are then made for non-cash flow components reported on Form 1040 (i.e. capital gains (losses), pass-through income (losses), etc.) and for other cash flow components not reported on Form 1040 (i.e. Form K-1 distributions, loans, perquisites, etc.).

29

Imputing Income from Retirement Assets

• Voluntary payments to deferred compensation plans (e.g., 401K,

414B), Keoghs, and IRAs should be considered income when

calculating a child support obligation.

• Mandatory retirement contributions are not considered income

when calculating a child support obligation.

• Contribution from an employer to a voluntary 401(k) plan and any

income generated by the plan should not be included as income to

determine a child support obligation.

30

Imputing Income Using Averaging

• Income averaging should be favorably considered in appropriate cases.

• The court will expand the 36-month timeframe articulated in Appendix IX-B of the Court Rules when dealing with self-employed individuals under appropriate circumstances.

• Case law around the country approved averaging of three to five years income, particularly where an individual is self-employed with income fluctuating from year to year. Nothing in those cases required peaks and valleys.

• A five-year average might be appropriate when a party is self-employed and has discretion over their salary.

• Ultimately, the application of income averaging is guided by principles of fairness and equity.

• Consider the nature of the economic business cycle for certain industries.

31

Imputing Income from Stock Options &

RSU’s • Mere receipt of RSU’s or stock options does not automatically give rise

to additional income for the purposes of calculating support.

• The actual exercise of RSU’s or options may give rise to income if there is a demonstrated fair market value of the stock above the option/acquisition price.

• It must be determined whether the RSU’s or stock options were ‘consistent, recurring and a substantial part of the payor’s regular income’ consistent with the definition of ‘gross income’ contained within Appendix IX-B of the Guidelines.

• RSU’s or options may be excluded from income if they do not fall within the definition of “gross income” or if the exercise is not recurring or will not necessarily increase the income to the recipient available to defray expenses over an extended period of time.

• The vesting of RSU’s or stock options can be considered income for purposes of calculating a support obligation when the parties historically exercised the RSU’s or stock options upon vesting and utilized the profits as supplemental income to support the household throughout the marriage.

32

Discovery and Evidence Needed to Impute

Income? • Tax Documents

• Personal Form 1040 (with W-2’s)

• Business Returns (Forms 1120, 1120S, 1065)

• Forms K-1

• Form 1099 (interest, dividends, non-employee compensation, royalty income, rental income, etc.)

• Employment Records • Compensation Summaries from Employer

• Employee Personnel Files

• Financial statements

• Audited and reviewed financial statements

• Business Documents • Discovery Request List

33

Discovery and Evidence Needed to Impute

Income?

• Job Search Records

• Resume

• Letters to Prospective Employers

• Records of Employment Websites

34

How to impute income: Use of Experts

• Financial Experts

• Vocational Experts

35

Alimony in Texas

• “The Texas Constitution provides that current wages for

personal services are not subject to garnishment, except

for the enforcement of court-child support or spousal

maintenance. Tex. Const. art. XVI, §28.” Heller v. Heller,

359 S.W. 902, 903 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 2012, no pet.).

• Generally, both spousal maintenance and child support

are capped in duration and amount. TFC §154.001

Support of Child; TFC §154.125 Application of Guidelines

to Net Resources; TFC §8.054 Duration of Maintenance

Order;TFC §8.055 Amount of Maintenance.

• Disability may extend child support or spousal

maintenance indefinitely

36

Calculating Current Child Support: Net

Resources • To calculate current child support, the trial court must first calculate the obligor’s

net resources. TFC §154.062. The statutory definition of net resources is expansive and includes:

• (1) 100 percent of all wage and salary income and other compensation for personal services (including commissions, overtime pay, tips, and bonuses);

• (2) interest, dividends, and royalty income;

• (3) self-employment income;

• (4) net rental income (defined as rent after deducting operating expenses and mortgage payments, but not including noncash items such as depreciation); and

• (5) all other income actually being received, including severance pay, retirement benefits, pensions, trust income, annuities, capital gains, social security benefits other than supplemental security income, United States Department of Veterans Affairs disability benefits other than non-service-connected disability pension benefits, as defined by 38 U.S.C. Section 101(17), unemployment benefits, disability and workers' compensation benefits, interest income from notes regardless of the source, gifts and prizes, spousal maintenance, and alimony.

• TFC §154.062(b).

• Exclusions from Net Resources found in TFC § 154.062(c).

• Obligor’s spouse’s net resources are not considered. TFC § 154.069(a).

37

TFC § 154.062(b)(5): Catch-All Provision

• TFC §154.062(b)(5) is a catch-all provision for forms of income not specifically excluded in §154.062(c). In re P.C.S., 320 S.W.3d 525, 537 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied) (cash inheritance was a resource for calculating child support).

• In re L.R.P., 98 S.W.3d 312, 314 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. dism’d) (child support obligor was a college student and monthly payments from obligor’s father constituted resources).

• In re G.K.H., No. 04-97-00890-CV, 1998 Tex.App. LEXIS 4890 (Tex.App.—San Antonio, Aug. 12, 1998) (bank statements showed father’s checking account had more funds go through it monthly than he claimed he earned)

• Matthews v. Northup, 2010 Tex.App. LEXIS 4034 *9 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 27, 2010, pet. denied). (“[A] parent’s child support obligation is not limited to the parent’s ability to pay from current earnings. Rather, it extends to his or her financial ability to pay from any and all available sources.”)

38

Unemployment & Underemployment

• If a obligor is intentionally unemployed or underemployed such that his actual income is “significantly less” than what he could earn, the trial court may assume the obligor’s earning potential in its calculation of net resources. TFC §154.066. The obligee does not need to establish that the obligor is intentionally underemployed for the purpose of avoiding child support, only that the obligor is intentionally underemployed. Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74, 80 (Tex. 2011) (father with MBA who previously earned $102,000/year underemployed operating tractor).

• The obligor may present rebuttal evidence of compelling reasons for lesser income. Id., at 82.

39

Intentional Underemployment

• In re N.T., 335 S.W.3d 660, (Tex.App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.) (professional basketball player was underemployed by not working in the off season)

• In re D.R.G., III, No. 04-05-00439-CV, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 10585 (Tex.App.—San Antonio Dec. 13, 2006, no pet.) (father who made more than $150,000/yr underemployed as office manager at new wife’s firm)

• Johnson v. Johnson, 2001 Tex.App. LEXIS 2470 (Tex.App.—Dallas Apr. 16, 2001) (father allegedly quit job because of diabetic condition; other witnesses testified to his prowess as athletic outdoorsman)

• Smith v. Detrich, 2010 Tex.App. LEXIS 238 (Tex.App.—Austin, Jan. 13, 2010, no pet.) (navy veteran retired early and looked for employment for which he was not qualified)

40

Above Guideline Child Support

• If the obligor’s monthly net resources exceed the statutory cap (currently $8,550), the obligor’s child support will be calculated as a percentage of that first $8,550.

• Once the trial court has determined the monthly net resources of the obligor, the trial court then applies the guideline support unless the guideline support would not be in the child’s best interest. TFC §154.123.

• In determining whether to deviate from the guidelines, the trial court considers the needs of the child and a range of other factors, including “any financial resources available to the child.” TFC §154.123(b)(3). “Any financial resources available” is not the same as “net resources.” Lide v. Lide, 116 S.W.3d 147 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2003, no pet.) (affirming child support award in excess of guidelines). Thus the trial court is not limited by the definition of “net resources” as it is when applying section 154.062.

41

Spousal Maintenance

• As with child support, spousal maintenance is typically capped in duration and amount.

• Under TFC § 8.051, the party requesting maintenance must meet the statute’s two-prong test.

• 1. In all cases, the party requesting maintenance must demonstrate she will lack sufficient property, including separate property, on dissolution of the marriage to provide for the spouse’s minimum reasonable needs (current, not future).

• 2. If the requesting spouse can establish need, she must also meet one of four requirements:

• Be the victim or the parent of a victim of family violence (TFC §8.051(1));

• Have an incapacitating physical or mental disability (TFC §8.051(2)(A));

• Have been married ten years or longer and lack ability to earn sufficient income (TFC §8.051(2)(B)); or

• Be unable to earn sufficient income because the requesting spouse is the custodian of a child who requires substantial care and personal supervision (TFC §8.051(2)(C)).

42

Establishing Need

• Everitt v. Everitt, No. 01-1100031-CV, 2012 Tex.App.

LEXIS 7698 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 31, 2012,

no pet.) (memo. op.) (wife had an engineering degree but

had been out of the work force)

• Day v. Day, 452 S.W.3d 430, 434 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (wife already worked full time and

overtime though her wages did not cover her expenses

and she had no other assets)

• Slicker v. Slicker, 464 S.W.3d 850, 860 (Tex.App.—Dallas

2015, no pet.) (wife had not been in the workplace for 40

years, had no specific education or employment skills,

and had no resources other than social security).

43

Factors in Determining Maintenance

• Once a requesting spouse is determined to be eligible, the court shall determine the nature, amount, duration and manner of periodic payments by “considering all relevant factors” including: 1) the ability of the spouse seeking maintenance to provide for his or her own minimum reasonable needs independently; (2) the spouses' education and employment skills; (3) the duration of the marriage; (4) the age, employment history, earning ability, and physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance; (5) the effect on each spouse's ability to provide for that spouse's minimum reasonable needs while providing periodic child support payments or maintenance, if applicable; (6) "acts by either spouse resulting in excessive or abnormal expenditures or destruction, concealment, or fraudulent disposition of community property"; (7) the contribution by one spouse to the education, training, or increased earning power of the other spouse; (8) property brought to the marriage by either spouse; and (9) the contribution of a spouse as homemaker. Benoit v. Benoit, 2015 Tex.App. LEXIS 12859 *18 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 22, 2015, no pet.).

• Thus, earning potential is a necessary consideration of spousal maintenance.

44

Gross Income

• Gross income includes:

• (A) 100 percent of all wage and salary income and other compensation for personal services (including commissions, overtime pay, tips, and bonuses);

• (B) interest, dividends, and royalty income;

• (C) self-employment income;

• (D) net rental income (defined as rent after deducting operating expenses and mortgage payments, but not including noncash items such as depreciation); and

• (E) all other income actually being received, including severance pay, retirement benefits, pensions, trust income, annuities, capital gains, unemployment benefits, interest income from notes regardless of the source, gifts and prizes, maintenance, and alimony;

• TFC §8.055(a-1)(1).

45

Duration of Spousal Maintenance

• Maintenance payments cannot exceed the periods set forth in TFC §8.054:

• Five years if based upon family violence and married less than 10 years;

• Five years if married more than 10 years but less than 20 years;

• Seven years if married more than 20 years and less than 30 years; and

• Ten years if married more than 30 years; or

• Indefinite but subject to periodic review if based upon a spouse’s or child’s continuing disability

• TFC §8.054. See also Novick v. Shervin, 412 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.).

46

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Aronson v. Aronson, 245 N.J. Super 354 (App.Div. 1991)

• Arribi v Arribi, 186 N.J. Super. 116, 118 (Ch. Div. 1982)

• Benciveinga v. Benciveinga, 254 N.J. Super 328 (App. Div. 1992)

• Burg v. Burg, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1306 (App. Div. June 12, 2012)

• Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250, 268-70 (2005)

• Connell v. Connell, 313 N.J. Super 426 (App. Div. 1998)

• Donnelly v. Donnelly, 405 N.J. Super. 117, 128-29 (App. Div. 2009)

• Dorfman v. Dorfman, 315 N.J. Super 511 (App. Div. 1998)

• Edell v. Edell, 2005 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 648 (App. Div. Nov. 28, 2005) (Unpublished)

• Eick v. Eick, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 581 (App. Div. Mar. 16, 2012) (Unpublished)

• Forrestall v. Forrestall, 389 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2008)

• Gertcher v. Gertcher, 262 N.J. Super 176 (Ch. Div. 1992)

• Gnall v. Gnall, 432 N.J. Super. 129, 158 (App. Div. 2013)

• Golian v. Golian, 344 N.J.Super 337 (App. Div. 2001)

• Halliwell v. Halliwell, 326 N.J. Super. 442, 448 (App. Div. 1999)

• Heller-Loren v. Apuzzio, 371 N.J. Super. 518 (App. Div. 2004)

• Innes v. Innes, 117 N.J. 496, 513 (1990)

• In Re Marriage of Blazer, 176 Cal. App. 4th 1438 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)

• In re Marriage of Brand, 44 P.3d 321, 327-28 (Kan. 2002)

• Khalaf v. Khalaf, 58 N.J. 63 (1971)

• Lanza v. Lanza, 268 N.J. Super. 603 (Ch. Div. 1993)

• Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17, 23 (App. Div. 2006)

• Lepis v. Lepis supra at 83 N.J. at 145

• Lynn v. Lynn, 165 N.J. Super. 328, 341 (App. Div.)

• Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408 (1999)

• Milne v. Goldenberg, 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2571 (App. Div. Oct. 15, 2009) (Unpublished)

• Mowery v. Mowery, 38 N.J. Super. 92, 102 (App. Div. 1955)

• Overbay v. Overbay, 376 N.J. Super 99 (App. Div. 2005)

• Painter v. Painter, 65 N.J. 196, 214 (1974)

• Platt v. Platt, 384 N.J. Super. 418, 426-27 (App. Div. 2006)

• Quinn v. Quinn, 276 A.2d 425 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1971)

• Raymond v. Raymond, 39 N.J.Super. 24, 30 (Ch.Div.1956)

• Retik v. Retik, 2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 355 (App. Div. Feb. 15, 2013) (Unpublished)

• Schwarz v. Schwarz, 328 N.J. Super. 275 (App. Div. 2000)

• Stiffler v. Stiffler, 304 N.J. Super 96 (Ch. Div. 1997)

• Storey v. Storey, 373 N.J. Super. 464, 474 (App. Div. 2004)

• Tannen v. Tannen, 416 N.J. Super. 248, 261 (App. Div. 2010)

• Tash v. Tash, 353 N.J. Super. 94, 99 (App. Div. 2002)

• Tebbe v. Tebbe, 815 N.E.2d 180, 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)

• Walker v. Grow, 907 A.2d 255 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006)

• Wasserman v. Parciasepe, 377 NJS 191 (Ch. Div. 2004)

• Villegas v. Villegas, 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1985 (App. Div. Aug. 11, 2014) (Unpublished)

• Zold v. Zold, 911 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 2005)

•

47

Charles F. Vuotto, Jr., Esq.

Charles F. Vuotto, Jr., Esq. is the Managing Partner of the law firm of Tonneman, Vuotto, Enis & White, LLC with offices in

Cedar Knolls and Matawan, New Jersey. He has dedicated his professional career of approximately 30 years to the practice of family law with the goal of resolving issues in a fair and expeditious manner. With that goal in mind, Mr. Vuotto not only litigates divorce in a strong and compassionate fashion, but also embraces alternative dispute resolution approaches. As such, he is trained as a family law mediator. He is also trained as an arbitrator of matrimonial issues by the Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (“AAML”).

Mr. Vuotto is certified by the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Law Attorney. He is a past Chair of the Family Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association (2009-2010). Since 2010, he has served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Family Law Section’s prestigious publication, the New Jersey Family Lawyer. Mr. Vuotto is a one of approximately 1,600 AAML Fellows across the nation and has been elected to the Board of Managers of its New Jersey Chapter.

Mr. Vuotto lectures extensively to lawyers and judges and has authored over 90 articles on the practice of family law. Mr. Vuotto has been honored by the state’s Supreme Court by appointment to various committees including the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Family Part Practice Committee (2009-2011). He was also appointed to represent the New Jersey State Bar Association on the Ad Hoc Committee on the Arbitration of Family Matters. The report of this committee was ultimately accepted by the Supreme Court in 2015 and resulted in substantial changes to the Rules of Court regarding the arbitration of family law matters.

Mr. Vuotto has been selected for inclusion in New Jersey Super Lawyers® list in 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2010-2016. He has also been selected by his peers for inclusion in the 2009-2016 editions of the Best Lawyers of America ® in the area of Family Law. Mr. Vuotto received a Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating of AV. He is a member of Matrimonial Lawyers Alliance (“MLA”). Mr. Vuotto received the 2013 Edward Schoifet Family Law Award on January 23, 2013 presented by the Family Law Section of the Middlesex County Bar Association. He is a Fellow in Litigation Counsel of America. Mr. Vuotto was awarded the Saul Tischler Award by the Family Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association at its annual dinner on April 19, 2016. The Tischler Award is presented for lifetime contributions to the achievement of family law in the State of New Jersey and is the most prestigious award to be presented to a family law attorney.

Copyright 2016 Charles F. Vuotto, Jr., Esq. Tonneman, Vuotto, Enis & White, LLC

48

FRIEDMAN LLP

Scott A. Maier, CPA, ABV, ASA, JD

Academic and Professional Credentials:

Bachelor of Science (Accounting & Economics and Juris Doctor), Rutgers University Certified Public

Accountant, New York and New Jersey

Accredited in Business Valuation, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

Certificate of Education Achievement in Business Valuation,

Certified in Financial Forensics, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

Position and Experience:

Partner, Friedman, LLP, Certified Public Accountants

Qualified as an expert witness on business valuation issues

Memberships:

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants - Designee of ABV accreditation

New Jersey Society of Certified Public Accountants -Served as the Chair of the Matrimonial

Accounting Committee

New Jersey Society of Appraisers, Senior Appraiser

American Society of Appraisers

American Bar Association - Served as New Jersey Young Attorney delegate to national meetings

New Jersey Bar Association -Young Lawyers Division Executive Committee (1993-1998) - Family Law

Committee

New York Bar Association

Bar Association for the City of New York

Former Member of Randolph, New Jersey’s Board of Adjustment

49

Laura D. Dale, Esq. of Laura Dale &

Associates, P.C

Ms. Dale focuses her practice on international and domestic

family law cases. She is highly experienced in complex,

multijurisdictional litigation involving all areas of family law. She

counsels clients on international child abduction cases brought

under the Hague Convention, custody litigation, complex

property division cases, family law appeals, modifications,

protective orders, premarital and marital agreements, foreign

asset valuation in complex property division cases, and paternity

suits. She is Board Certified Texas Board of Legal Specialization

- Family Law, is a member of the International Academy of

Matrimonial Lawyers and of the Texas Academy of Family Law

Specialists, and is Legal Counsel to the French Consulate

General - Houston, Texas.

50

THANK YOU!

Charles F. Vuotto Jr., Esq, cvuotto@tvelaw.com

Scott Maier, CPA/ABV, smaier@friedmanllp.com

Laura D. Dale, Esq., ldale@dalefamilylaw.com

51