BIBI-RASHEEDA KAMAR-PERSAUD v. RAJENDRA PERSAUD

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2789-10T1

BIBI-RASHEEDA KAMAR-PERSAUD,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RAJENDRA PERSAUD,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________

December 16, 2011

Submitted December 5, 2011 - Decided

Before Judges Alvarez and Skillman.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FM-02-1964-07.

Anthony A. Kress, attorney for appellant.

Respondent Bibi-Rasheeda Kamar-Persaud has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal by defendant from the second post-judgment order reducing his alimony obligation to plaintiff.

The parties were divorced in March 2008. Under the property settlement agreement incorporated in the judgment of divorce, defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $18,000 per year in alimony. The agreement recited that this alimony amount was calculated based upon defendant's average income of $130,449 and plaintiff's average income of $67,668 during the two calendar years preceding their divorce (2006 and 2007).

Around the time of the divorce, defendant's employment was terminated. This termination triggered a motion by defendant for a reduction in his alimony obligation. Defendant also sought to be relieved of his alimony obligation based on plaintiff's alleged cohabitation with an unrelated male.

The trial court conducted a plenary hearing relating to this motion. On May 6, 2009, the court issued a comprehensive written opinion which concluded that defendant had failed to show plaintiff's cohabitation. The court further concluded that defendant had established a substantial decrease in his income and earning capacity, which warranted a decrease in his alimony obligation from $18,000 to $12,000 per year. In that opinion, the court imputed to defendant an income of $95,000 per year.

Approximately a year later, defendant filed a second motion for the termination, suspension, or reduction of his alimony obligation based primarily upon his alleged reduced income and earning capacity. The trial court again conducted a plenary hearing, and on December 29, 2010, again issued a comprehensive written opinion. Based on the evidence presented at that hearing, the court found that defendant had experienced a further reduction in income from $95,000 to $80,000, which constituted a change in circumstances that warranted a reduction in his alimony obligation from $12,000 to $5,000 annually.

On appeal from the order memorializing this ruling, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for the complete termination or suspension of his alimony obligation. We reject this argument substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Guida's December 29, 2010 written opinion. Defendant's argument does not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.