If you’re paying or receiving alimony or child support in New Jersey, you’ve probably heard someone mention “changed circumstances” or a “Lepis motion.” Both phrases trace back to one case: Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980). More than four decades later, it’s still the case every New Jersey family law attorney reaches for when a client’s life looks nothing like it did on the day their divorce was finalized.
Here’s what the case actually says, and what it means for you.
The Problem Lepis Solved
Divorce judgments and property settlement agreements are written at a single moment in time, based on the finances, health, and family structure that existed then. But life doesn’t hold still. Someone loses a job. Someone becomes disabled. Someone has more children with someone else. A child grows up and needs less — or a different kind — of support. Before Lepis, New Jersey courts didn’t have a clear, consistent standard for deciding when those kinds of shifts justified reopening a support order.
What the Court Decided
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that alimony and child support orders are never truly final — they remain modifiable under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. A settlement agreement between the parties doesn’t remove that ongoing authority of the Court to review changes and apply just remedies.
The standard the Court settled on: modification is warranted when changed circumstances substantially impair a dependent spouse’s ability to maintain the standard of living the original support order was meant to provide — or, on the flip side, when the paying spouse’s ability to meet that obligation has been substantially undermined.
A few points from the decision are worth underlining, because they still trip people up:
- It runs both ways. Lepis isn’t just a tool for spouses trying to reduce what they pay. A dependent spouse can also move to increase support if their needs have grown or the paying spouse’s income has risen significantly. However, factually speaking alimony awards are very rarely increased , child support regularly increases or decreases with the circumstances of the parties.
- “Changed” doesn’t mean “unforeseeable.” The Court made clear that changed circumstances aren’t limited to events nobody could have predicted. A child getting older and needing more for school, activities, or healthcare is a foreseeable kind of change — and it still can count (or sometimes, it can not…each case is weighed independently ).
- The old “unconscionability” test was rejected. Courts had previously required a showing that enforcing the existing agreement would be unconscionable. Lepis replaced that high bar with the more workable changed-circumstances framework.
The Factors Courts Look At
Lepis also gave courts a framework for evaluating whether the marital standard of living is still being maintained. Broadly, that means looking at the dependent spouse’s needs, that spouse’s own ability to meet those needs, and the paying spouse’s ability to keep contributing at the prior level. In practice, the circumstances that come up again and again include:
- A significant increase or decrease in either party’s income
- Illness, disability, or a change in earning capacity
- Cohabitation or remarriage of the dependent spouse
- The payor having more children
- Loss of employment, particularly if it’s involuntary and appears permanent rather than temporary (must demonstrate significant efforts to reemploy at the same rate)
- Retirement of the paying spouse (a rebuttable presumption)
- A child’s changing needs as they get older (for child support specifically)
No single factor is automatically decisive — courts weigh them together, and against how the parties’ finances looked at the time of the original order.
The Two-Step Process
Lepis didn’t just set the substantive standard; it also laid out the procedure, which New Jersey courts still follow today:
- The moving party must first make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances. This means presenting enough credible evidence — tax returns, pay stubs, medical records, and the like — to suggest a real, substantial change has occurred. A party isn’t entitled to open-ended discovery into their ex-spouse’s finances just by asking.
- If that threshold showing is made and there’s a genuine dispute of material fact, the court will order full financial discovery and, if necessary, a plenary hearing to sort out whether modification is actually warranted.
This two-step structure protects both sides: it prevents support orders from being relitigated on a whim, while still giving a spouse with a legitimate change somewhere to go.
A Note on “Anti-Lepis” Clauses
Some property settlement agreements try to limit or waive the right to seek a Lepis modification, or to define in advance exactly what will count as changed circumstances. These provisions — sometimes called anti-Lepis clauses — are generally enforceable in New Jersey, which is one more reason it’s worth having an attorney review a settlement agreement closely before you sign it, not just after something changes. Sometimes it is beneficial to have an anti-Lepis clause but there are many circumstances where this can be overly restrictive on your own situation.
What This Means If Your Circumstances Have Changed
If your income, health, or family situation looks meaningfully different than it did when your support order was entered, Lepis is very likely the standard that will apply to your case. The key is documentation: courts want to see the paper trail behind the change, not just hear about it.
If you’re not sure whether what you’re going through would meet the Lepis threshold, that’s a conversation worth having with a family law attorney before you file anything. A motion filed without a solid prima facie showing can be denied outright — and refiling later means starting the clock over. If you would like a free, 20 minute, honest consultation, call 856-227-7888.