Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Morris v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2022Parties are free to enter into agreements departing from the general "need-based" Lepis rule and establish their own standards by which they agree to be guided in cases involving "reasonably foreseeable future circumstances . . . ." Morris v. Morris, 263 N.J. 2019Notwithstanding, parties are free to enter into agreements departing from the general Lepis rule and establish their own standards by which they agree to be guided in cases involving "reasonably foreseeable future circumstances[.]" Morris v. Morris, 263 N.J. | 3 | 3 |
Larbig v. Larbiggreen2 sentences2009Instead, such matters turn on the discretionary determinations of Family Part judges, based upon their experience as applied to all the relevant circumstances presented, which we do not disturb absent an abuse of discretion. [ 384 N.J.Super. at 23 , 894 A. 2d 1 .] Here, the judge had a full understanding of the past circumstances, having not only presided over a divorce trial that was apparently settled in mid-stream, [4] but also having heard an earlier Lepis motion, conducted a multi-day hearing regarding those allegations and made findings that have considerable bearing on the allegations m 2009Instead, such matters turn on the discretionary determinations of Family Part judges, based upon their experience as applied to all the relevant circumstances presented, which we do not disturb absent an abuse of discretion. [ 384 N.J.Super. at 23 , 894 A. 2d 1 .] Here, the judge had a full understanding of the past circumstances, having not only presided over a divorce trial that was apparently settled in mid-stream, [4] but also having heard an earlier Lepis motion, conducted a multi-day hearing regarding those allegations and made findings that have considerable bearing on the allegations m | 2 | 3 |
Smith v. Smithgreen2 sentences2022In that regard, our Court noted long ago, "[i]f the existing support arrangement has in fact provided for the circumstances alleged as 'changed,' it would not ordinarily be 'equitable and fair,' to grant modification." Lepis, 83 N.J. at 153 (quoting Smith v. Smith, 72 N.J. 350, 360 (1977)). 2022In that regard, our Court noted long ago, "[i]f the existing support arrangement has in fact provided for the circumstances alleged as 'changed,' it would not ordinarily be 'equitable and fair,' to grant modification." Lepis, 83 N.J. at 153 (quoting Smith v. Smith, 72 N.J. 350, 360 (1977)). | 2 | 2 |
Aronson v. Aronsongreen1 sentence2019See Aronson v. Aronson, 245 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lepis v. Lepis
green
2 sentences2025Thereafter, the court entered a series of orders: (1) January 2024, "finding a change in circumstances" therefore requiring new calculations under the child support guidelines and ordering the parties to "exchange their updated [c]ase [i]nformation [s]tatements [(CIS)], 2022 tax returns, and last three most recent paystubs"; (2) March 2024, requiring defendant to submit her updated CIS within seven days; and (3) April 2024, requiring the parties to "exchange and submit to the [c]ourt [their] 2023 tax returns, 2023 W2s and financials within 20 days." In the May 15, 2024 order, the trial court g 2025Thereafter, the court entered a series of orders: (1) January 2024, "finding a change in circumstances" therefore requiring new calculations under the child support guidelines and ordering the parties to "exchange their updated [c]ase [i]nformation [s]tatements [(CIS)], 2022 tax returns, and last three most recent paystubs"; (2) March 2024, requiring defendant to submit her updated CIS within seven days; and (3) April 2024, requiring the parties to "exchange and submit to the [c]ourt [their] 2023 tax returns, 2023 W2s and financials within 20 days." In the May 15, 2024 order, the trial court g | 6 | 1995–2026 |
Donnelly v. Donnelly
green
1 sentence2026Likewise, we have held "[a]n opponent of a Lepis motion is not required to provide a case information statement or disclose financial information until such time as the movant demonstrates a change in circumstances." Donnelly, 405 N.J. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Nancy E. Landers v. Patrick J. Landers
green
2 sentences2022But as we have previously noted, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3), "follows the prior principles outlined in Lepis and its progeny, by mandating [a trial court] . . . determine whether the obligor, by a preponderance of the evidence, has demonstrated that modification or termination of alimony is appropriate." Id. at 324 .2 By preserving the Lepis standard, the amended statute prevented the evisceration of existing support provisions in marital settlement agreements or consent orders that explicitly contemplated an anticipated event which otherwise might constitute a substantial change in circumstances 2022But as we have previously noted, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3), "follows the prior principles outlined in Lepis and its progeny, by mandating [a trial court] . . . determine whether the obligor, by a preponderance of the evidence, has demonstrated that modification or termination of alimony is appropriate." Id. at 324 .2 By preserving the Lepis standard, the amended statute prevented the evisceration of existing support provisions in marital settlement agreements or consent orders that explicitly contemplated an anticipated event which otherwise might constitute a substantial change in circumstances | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Beck v. Beck
green
1 sentence1990Super. 183, 190-191 , 570 A. 2d 1273 (App.Div. 1990) (father entitled to Lepis hearing after demonstrating his decreased ability to pay child support while assuming college expenses). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.