# Savings component **URL:** \ **Category:** Divorce and Separation Answers\ **Created:** [March 25, 2008, 3:19pm UTC](https://forum.rosen.com/t/savings-component/5780 "2008-03-25T15:19:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Helena\_Nevicosi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/db5fbb/32.png) [@Helena\_Nevicosi](https://forum.rosen.com/u/Helena_Nevicosi)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2008, 3:19pm UTC](https://forum.rosen.com/t/savings-component/5780/1 "2008-03-25T15:19:22Z")
If those circumstances were considered when the court made its initial alimony decision, it would not be a basis to modify the order now. If these are new facts that the court did not previously consider, they my use it as a basis to modify. In order to modify an order for alimony, the court must determine that something substantial has changed from the time the last order was entered, not simply that the amount of money the court awarded was not sufficient based on expenses that existed at the time of the initial award. Helena M. Nevicosi Attorney with Rosen Law Firm 4101 Lake Boone Trail, Suite 500 Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 919.787.6668 main phone 919.787.6361 main fax Charlotte Office 301 McCullough Drive Suite 510 Charlotte, NC 28262 Main Phone: (704)307.4600 Main Fax: (704) 9343.0044 Durham & Chapel Hill Office 1829 East Franklin Street Building 600 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 321.0780 > **[North Carolina Divorce Law - Legal Answers and Info](https://www.rosen.com/)** > > The best resource for divorce in NC. Find accurate, legal, family law advice from attorneys practicing in Raleigh, Durham, Cary, and Chapel Hill. The response posted above is based upon the limited factual information made available and is not intended as a full and complete response to the question. The only reliable manner to obtain complete and adequate legal advice is to consult with an attorney, fully explain your situation, and allow the attorney sufficient opportunity to research the applicable law and facts required to render an accurate opinion. The basic information provided above is intended as a public service only, a full discussion with an attorney should be undertaken before taking any action. The information posted on this forum is available for public viewing and is not intended to create an attorney client relationship with any individual. These answers are provided for informational purposes only, a person should consult with their own individual legal counsel before taking any action that could affect their legal rights or obligations. ---
**Author:** ![momsdaughter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@momsdaughter](https://forum.rosen.com/u/momsdaughter)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2008, 7:54am UTC](https://forum.rosen.com/t/savings-component/5780/2 "2008-03-24T07:54:52Z")
The Final Orders in my case specified a certain amount for me as a “savings component”. During the marriage, income was set aside for investment and saving purposes. I was granted only a small fraction to be classified as such and the only way I have any “savings” is for what is left of my assets to produce income. I have no extra income to invest and in fact, must use practically every cent of income I have just to live. With depletion of assets, I am having to use what the assets produce just to pay my taxes. My “expenses” were based solely on the amount of allowance I received from the ex during the marriage and the judge ignored the total amount of income. Therefore, the ex walked away with practically all of his income and the ability to save and invest just as much or more than “we” did during the marriage. Because I lived a frugal life, I have been condemned to live it forever. The amount of the allowance was only about 1/4 of the total income, but any other monies spent (cash paid for everything…no debts) was completely ignored. Would the inability to save be a substantial change of circumstances since savings and investments were such an integral part of my standard of living? I pretty much live month to month now with payments all over the place while the ex got off losing about 10% of his income with the ability to amass substantial extra assets which will only serve to increase the income disparity over time.