ALISA FORMAN VS. MARK FORMAN (FM-13-0785-11, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1904-14T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 24, 2017Background
- Parties executed a 2012 Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) incorporated into the final judgment, providing limited-duration alimony of $120,000/year for five years (non-modifiable/non-terminable during that term).
- The MSA expressly permitted cohabitation and included mutual waivers of modification during the five-year term; it did not mention remarriage or whether remarriage would terminate alimony.
- Plaintiff (Alisa Forman) remarried on August 12, 2013. Defendant (Mark Forman) stopped alimony payments in Feb 2014 after learning of the remarriage.
- Plaintiff moved to enforce alimony; defendant cross-moved to terminate alimony effective as of plaintiff’s remarriage and sought reimbursement for payments made after that date.
- Trial court ruled the MSA did not terminate alimony on remarriage, granted enforcement and counsel fees to plaintiff, and denied defendant’s cross-motion; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff's remarriage automatically terminated limited-duration alimony under the MSA | MSA provides only two termination events (death or expiration); remarriage does not terminate alimony | MSA did not waive application of statutory automatic termination on remarriage; remarriage should end payments and allow reimbursement of post-remarriage payments | Reversed and remanded for a plenary hearing to resolve parties' intent about remarriage and application of statutory automatic termination; trial court must determine reimbursement if termination is found |
| Whether the trial court could resolve disputed intent on certifications without plenary hearing | MSA language and court's finding support enforcement without plenary hearing | Conflicting intent and absence of explicit waiver of statutory termination create material factual dispute requiring hearing | Court held a plenary hearing is required because material factual dispute exists about parties’ intent regarding remarriage and statutory termination |
| Whether defendant is entitled to reimbursement for payments made after remarriage | Plaintiff says no; trial court denied reimbursement | Defendant seeks reimbursement for payments made after remarriage if remarriage terminated alimony | If trial court finds alimony terminated on remarriage, reimbursement may be ordered only for payments due after remarriage; arrears prior to remarriage remain collectible |
| Whether sanctions/bench warrant/judgment/counsel-fee rulings should stand without plenary/ability-to-pay hearing | Plaintiff sought enforcement and fees; trial court awarded fees and enforcement remedies | Defendant challenged sanctions, bench warrant, judgments and fee award as improper without further hearing | Remand will permit reconsideration of related remedies (counsel fees and enforcement issues) after plenary factfinding; child support obligation unaffected |
Key Cases Cited
- Kieffer v. Best Buy, 205 N.J. 213 (de novo review of contract interpretation)
- Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (statutory policy: remarriage automatically terminates certain alimony)
- Ravin, Sarasohn, Cook, Baumgarten, Fisch & Rosen v. Lowenstein Sandler, 365 N.J. Super. 241 (interpretive principles: read contract contextually and presume parties contracted with reference to existing law)
- Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Heritage Square Ass'n, 325 N.J. Super. 42 (laws in effect at contract formation are incorporated into the contract)
- Palmieri v. Palmieri, 388 N.J. Super. 562 (material factual disputes require plenary hearing)