In-House Attorney, Income Halved, Should've Had Alimony Reduced, Court Says

[caption id="attachment_4953" align="alignleft" width="620"]

Credit: Bigstock[/caption] An in-house attorney who went to work for Pfizer after losing his position as general counsel for Lucent Technologies, taking a pay cut in the process, should've had the reduction taken into account in connection with this child support and alimony obligations, a New Jersey appeals court said. According to the Appellate Division, Keller and his now-ex-wife, Kristen, were married in 1998 and divorced in 2006. At the time of their divorce, they were living in Somerset County, the Dec. 8 ruling said. They have two children. At the time off their divorce, Keller was pulling down $582,000 a year with Lucent. He was assigned to work in Hong Kong, and the family had live-in help, membership at a country club and private schooling for the children, the court said. When the Kellers divorced in 2006, he agreed to pay $10,756 a month in alimony plus $2,887 a month in child support, according to the unpublished decision. For reasons that were not explained in the ruling, Keller lost his job in 2014 and was hired by Pfizer at a salary of $250,000 a year. Keller, in his LinkedIn profile, is listed as senior tax counsel for Pfizer, a position he has held since 2015. Keller initially filed motion to have his obligations reduced after losing the Lucent position, which was denied. He moved for reconsideration after getting the Pfizer job, but the trial judge denied his application, ruling that there was no "permanent change in circumstances" because bonuses and other forms of compensation could keep his earnings well above the $250,000 annual salary. Keller appealed that ruling. In their decision, Appellate Division Judges Karen Suter and Jane Grall said the trial judge failed to demonstrate consideration of the 23 factors laid out in the 2014 Alimony Reform Act, such as the reason for an income reduction. "We are satisfied record presented enough evidence of a significant change in circumstances that reconsideration was warranted," the appeals court said. "We agree with defendant that reconsideration ... should have been granted" as to the child support obligation as well, the court said. Keller's attorney, Gregory Pasler of Morristown's Townsend, Tomaio & Newmark, said: “The appellate court’s decision clearly confirms that ... the trial court cannot summarily dismiss an obligor’s request for a modification of their support obligations should they experience a loss of income." Kristen Keller's attorney, Jane Doran of Smith & Doran, also in Morristown, did not return calls seeking comment.