Claim to increase alimony – when?
The Family Court increased the father’s obligation to pay child support determined under an agreement. Divorce This is at a rate of 30% of the original child support rate.
When and under what conditions can a lawsuit be filed to increase alimony? What are the considerations by which the court will rule and decide the question?
A claim to increase the child support payments of a minor determined in an agreement between his parents and which has received the force of a judgment requires proof of the existence of a material change in circumstances that occurred from the date the judgment was rendered until the date the claim was filed.
Claims of this type are not accepted by Home Family Law As is routine, among other things, since the burden of proof placed on the shoulders of the plaintiff who is required to prove a material change in circumstances is a heavy burden, as not every change in circumstances will justify a change in their amount.
And more, Divorce Agreement A contract signed between the minor’s parents and given the force of a judgment contains various concessions and all the disputed matters, and therefore, as a general rule, the judgment must be examined as a single piece, even though minors are not bound by their parents’ agreements in their case.
What is that fundamental change of circumstances?
First, Section 13 of the Family Law Amendment (Support) Law, 5719-1959, states that the court may change what was determined in the agreement, waiver, and judgment, if it deems it necessary to do so based on circumstances that changed after the agreement, waiver, or judgment.
This means that you can go back to court regarding For payment Alimony, subject to proof of the condition that there has been a material change in circumstances that justifies changing the original determination.
The ruling determined that the change that the plaintiff must prove is one of the following:
- Actually the charge
- At the billing rate
- For the needs of the minor
- In the debtor’s capacity
- In the capacity of the custodial parent
- In the minor’s property
The burden of proof regarding a change in circumstances is heavy, and the plaintiff must prove the existence of new and significant circumstances that justify a change in the amount of child support, i.e., an increase.
It should also be noted that the more changes the plaintiff proves that amount to a substantial change in circumstances as defined in the ruling, the greater the chances of the claim being accepted and of a change in the amount of the alimony awarded.
This was emphasized by the Honorable Judge M. Shamgar in the proceedings. A.A. 363/81 Feiga v. Feiga, P.D. 10(3) 187, 188, stating as follows:
“This is not a trivial change, and therefore there is no legal rule, which creates the possibility of a retrial, that opens a wide gate, permitting retrial on the issue of alimony, whenever mutual resentment or conflicts of interest between the parties push for it.
On the contrary, the law limits and reduces the retrial, as stated, only to those cases in which a substantial change has occurred compared to the situation in the past. A change that is insignificant in its consequences must be absorbed by the parties to the previous litigation, and they must adapt themselves to its meaning, without having to turn to the courts again.“.
Recently, on February 2, 2015, the Family Court in Tiberias received from the Honorable Judge Mahmoud Shadafna a lawsuit from a mother on behalf of three minor children to increase their child support, even though the child support for the minors was determined between the two parents in an agreement that received the force of a judgment in 2009.
In this case, the minors’ parents reached agreements that were approved as a judgment, according to which, among other things: (1) The father is not liable for the expenses of the minors’ dormitory (who at the time lived with their mother in a caravan free of charge) (2) The monthly child support for the three minors was set at 3,000 NIS, i.e. 1,000 NIS per month for the support of a minor.
It should be noted here that the minimum child support payments determined according to the ruling amount to NIS 1,300 per child, and they do not include the minor’s salary, extraordinary medical expenses not covered by health insurance, and educational expenses.
It therefore follows that the child support payments that were agreed upon and approved as a judgment are lower than the minimum child support payments set forth in the ruling.
The judgment stated, among other things:
“The further the child support awarded is from the minimum threshold of approximately 1,300 NIS per month, not including expenses for education and/or care and other extraordinary expenses (Bar (Ta’a) 02/1895 Ben Ami v. Mashiach 1995-203(/) 23019 (30/1/20)), the more the court will tend to increase the child support award and expand the threshold for proving the claim.
The child support payment under the divorce agreement was set at NIS 1,000 per child. This is less than the necessary amount and does not meet the minimum child support ruling, and it does not even include expenses from the child support division.“.
What is the fundamental change in circumstances that led the court to accept the claim to increase the child support payments?
As stated above, apart from the fact that the child support payments determined are lower than the minimum rate determined in the court ruling, it was determined that the parents’ consent to the matter of not requiring the father to pay child support for the minors was based on the assumption that the mother would not be required to pay any rent.
However, since the mother of the minors has explained that she is responsible for a child support payment of NIS 1,000, we are faced with a substantial change in circumstances that justifies a change in the amount of the child support payments.
The court ruled in this matter:
“Hence, following the plaintiff’s obligation to pay rent, which the parties did not take into account in the divorce agreement, this constitutes a change in circumstances.
The parties’ starting point was apparently that the plaintiff had no obligation to pay for the alimony, but it was certainly not the parties’ intention to make the plaintiff bear this payment alone. Likewise, minors cannot be subjected to concessions made by their parents when it comes to their father’s absolute obligation to pay for their alimony.“.
It should also be noted that the court examined the father’s earning capacity, his actual income, and his property in light of her significantly lower income than the father’s, as well as the lack of regular visitation arrangements stipulated in the judgment, as well as the costs resulting from the lack of contact between the father and the minors, which fall on the mother’s shoulders, and she bears most of the additional expenses.
The court’s ruling in the verdict: The court increased the minors’ child support payments by 30% and determined that their child support payments would be set at 3,900 NIS per month.
In addition, the father was ordered to pay the sum of 20,000 NIS for past alimony arrears from the date the lawsuit was filed until the judgment was rendered.
In addition, the father was charged, among other things, half of the expenses of a class for each minor and half of extraordinary medical expenses.
Click here to contact her and receive personal legal advice!
