## Facts

- Wilfredo Cordero and Wendy Mora divorced in 1994 and have one child; Mora is the custodial parent.
- Cordero played Major League Baseball for 14 years, earning widely varying salaries, including seasons as high as about $6 million and as low as about $600,000.
- Cordero’s child-support obligation changed multiple times by court order over the years (including orders setting support at $1,300 per week, later reduced to $800, then $640, and later increased back to $1,300).
- By May 2007, a then-existing order required Cordero to pay $500 per week for the child.
- In May 2007, Mora filed a motion to enforce the $500-per-week obligation and sought nearly $12,000 in arrears.
- Cordero opposed enforcement and filed a post-judgment motion seeking to reduce his ongoing support obligation, claiming his MLB career ended in 2005 and his income had dropped substantially and on a continuing basis.
- Cordero asserted that after leaving MLB he obtained only limited, low-paying work: short-term employment at a baseball camp (earning about $4,700 between June 21 and August 4, 2007) and work at a deli for $8.25 per hour.
- He reported no salary in 2006, claimed monthly expenses exceeding $20,000, and stated his assets were limited to a $100,000 brokerage account and a major-league pension that he could not access until age 55.
- Cordero also referenced a child with a later former spouse, for whom he had not been paying support.
- The Family Part ordered payment of arrears and denied Cordero’s request to reduce support, finding his financial proofs insufficient, his evidence of employment efforts extremely limited, and his disclosures incomplete as to possible assets or income sources; the judge also questioned what happened to the large sums Cordero earned during his baseball career.
- Cordero appealed from the denial of his modification request.

## Issues

1. Did Cordero present a prima facie showing of a substantial, continuing change in circumstances warranting reopening and review of his child-support obligation?
2. If that showing was made, did the Family Part err by denying modification without conducting an evidentiary (plenary) hearing to resolve disputed facts about income, assets, and earning capacity?

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the order denying Cordero’s motion to reduce child support.
- The court held that Cordero demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances that persisted long enough to require further inquiry.
- The matter was remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine Cordero’s ability to pay and the appropriate level of support going forward.
- The Appellate Division did not set a new support amount; it left child-support calculations and related enforcement determinations to the trial court after fact-finding on remand.

## Legal Principles

- A child-support obligation may be modified upon a showing of changed circumstances, but the change must be substantial and not merely temporary.
- The moving party bears the initial burden to make a prima facie showing of such changed circumstances before the court reexamines the existing support order.
- When a prima facie showing is made and the parties’ submissions reveal material factual disputes affecting support—such as actual income, ability to earn, availability of assets, or credibility disputes about financial disclosures—due process generally requires a plenary hearing rather than decision on conflicting certifications alone.
- In setting or modifying child support, the court may consider present earnings, earning capacity, and available assets, and may impute income when supported by the evidence; questions about dissipation of past earnings and present resources are matters for fact-finding.

## Conclusion

Cordero v. Mora holds that a former high earner who shows a sustained, post-career drop in income may satisfy the threshold for child-support review, and that where the record contains genuine disputes about current income, assets, and earning ability, the Family Part should take testimony at a plenary hearing before denying modification.


Cordero v. Mora, 2009 WL 290538 (2009)