provide for herself or himself, and the supporting spouse’s ability to continue to pay support. Relevant to the supporting spouse’s ability to pay are: whether he or she has transferred assets to impair that ability, and whether the supporting spouse could control the disbursement of retirement income to enhance his or her ability to pay support. Third, the court must consider the fairness of the decision, based on the obligor’s motivation, good faith, the voluntariness of the retirement, and whether the retirement is sooner than expected. Ultimately, as discussed in Deegan, the court must determine whether the benefit to the retiring spouse substantially outweighs the detriment to the supported spouse. See also Storey v. Storey, 373 N.J.Super. 464, 469-70, 862 A.2d 551 (App.Div.2004) (<HOLDING>). However, the court should give greater weight
holding that an employer seeking modification must show a change in claimants physical condition holding the teenage childrens preference to live in fathers home was sufficient evidence to support a change in physical custody in a modification of a split physical custody arrangement even though the party seeking the change failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances holding that the balancing of advantages and disadvantages should apply to a modification motion filed because of a preretirement change in career that reduces earnings holding that change of circumstances is not prerequisite to additional   3583e2 modification holding that the district court and this court had subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants motion for modification of sentence based on amendment 706 even though the defendant filed the motion before march 3 2008 because the district court ruled on the motion after that date