William G. Mennen
How Judge Mennen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a claim that retirement is a good-faith change in circumstances justifying an end to alimony, he looks for objective corroboration -- a documented medical condition and the actual closure of a practice -- rather than accepting the claim at face value.
“Defendant was previously diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and osteoarthritis in his hands... Defendant argues that because of his declining health and having reached full retirement age... he closed his business and retired with full social security benefits.”
When interpreting a municipal ordinance, he looks past its stated label to who it actually binds -- an ordinance that reaches only applicants for development, rather than the public at large, reads as a zoning measure, not a general-police-power health-and-safety regulation.
“"is far more than a generic environmental regulation" and "does not apply to everyone but instead only to those who make an application for development."”
Procedural preferences
He declines to order a plenary hearing or added discovery once he judges the opposing side's certification to be conclusory rather than fact-based, reasoning that forcing more litigation would only burn through the parties' own resources.
“the judge correctly found that discovery would not have been helpful, would have served to "erode the parties' limited resources," and that there was no factual dispute regarding the basis for defendant's retirement.”
When ending a support obligation, he favors a graduated step-down over an abrupt cutoff, to soften the transition for the receiving spouse.
“the judge's decision to add a step-down provision was based on the presumption that it would have been a "shock to the system" for plaintiff's alimony to be abruptly terminated. Consequently, a "soft landing" was required.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Following oral argument, Judge Mennen rendered an oral opinion and issued a supplemental statement of reasons on September 30, 2022, granting defendant's motion to terminate plaintiff's alimony. In finding that defendant established a "good faith retirement," the judge ordered the termination of defendant's alimony obligation with an eight-month step-down: effective November 1, 2022, plaintiff's alimony was reduced to $1,500; effective February 23, 2023, plaintiff's alimony was reduced to $750 per month; and effective June 1, 2023, plaintiff's alimony was terminated.”
“In considering plaintiff's cross-motion, Judge Mennen concluded there were no genuine issues of material facts to be resolved by a plenary hearing. The judge reasoned that the conflicting certifications of the parties were "conclusory," "not factual," and "largely contested [d]efendant's conclusions of law."”
“Plaintiff claims the judge erred in determining the parties' financials were in "parity" because defendant's CIS showed that he was in a better financial position... We are not persuaded by the parties' arguments.”
“In contrast, defendant argues plaintiff's application was made in bad faith because she expected defendant to continue to work or deplete his assets, as found by the judge. We are not persuaded by the parties' arguments.”
“Judge Mennen analyzed the function of the Ordinance and determined that it "is far more than a generic environmental regulation" and "does not apply to everyone but instead only to those who make an application for development." ... Accordingly, Judge Mennen held that the Ordinance was not a health and public safety regulation ... but was a zoning ordinance subject to the TOA Rule. Judge Mennen, therefore, concluded that the Ordinance could not be retroactively applied to Plaintiff's application given that Plaintiff's application was submitted and deemed "complete" prior to the adoption of the Ordinance.”
“On July 18, 2024, Respondent Concore filed its own request for summary judgment... pursuant to the filing of a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment... On December 6, 2024, the Trial Court rendered its decision on the record, awarding summary judgment to both Respondents.”
Put Judge Mennen's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Mennen actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Mennen's own signed orders and cites them.