Cathleen Quinn v. David J. Quinn (074411)
137 A.3d 423
| N.J. | 2016Background
- David and Cathleen Quinn divorced in 2006 and entered a negotiated, court‑approved Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) providing David would pay permanent alimony to Cathleen, terminable on the wife’s death, husband’s death, remarriage, or cohabitation.
- At divorce David earned ≈$200k/year; Cathleen earned ≈$21k/year; alimony was biweekly (adjusted for CPI).
- David moved in 2010 to terminate alimony, alleging Cathleen cohabited with John Warholak beginning January 2008. The trial produced extensive evidence and credibility findings.
- The family court found that Cathleen and Warholak cohabited from Jan 2008–Apr 2010 but, based on equity and Cathleen’s economic dependence, suspended alimony for that period rather than terminate it and awarded David substantial counsel fees, allowing recovery by reducing future alimony payments by half for a fixed term.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the suspension. The Supreme Court granted certification on David’s appeal to decide whether the trial court could override the PSA’s express termination clause and suspend rather than terminate alimony.
Issues
| Issue | Quinn (Plaintiff) Argument | Quinn (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may suspend alimony for period of cohabitation instead of enforcing PSA’s express termination | David: PSA is clear and unambiguous; cohabitation was proven; court must enforce termination, not suspend | Cathleen: suspension was equitable given income disparity and lack of economic benefit from cohabitation | Court reversed: where PSA unambiguous, knowingly entered, and cohabitation is proven, court must enforce the parties’ agreed termination (terminate, not suspend) |
| Validity/enforceability of cohabitation clause in PSA | David: clause was knowingly and voluntarily accepted; enforceable | Cathleen: clause ambiguous, not plain, and inequitable because no demonstrated economic benefit from cohabitation | Held enforceable: clause was voluntary, with independent counsel and clear intent; Gayet economic‑need rule does not override a clear contractual termination provision negotiated by parties |
| Reinstatement of alimony after cessation of cohabitation | David: termination is permanent upon cohabitation; no reinstatement | Cathleen: cohabitation ended during trial; equitable to reinstate alimony thereafter | Held for David: cessation during trial does not justify departing from the parties’ agreed termination; termination applies for the cohabitation period and precludes reinstatement |
| Use of equitable powers to rewrite PSA or craft alternative remedies (including fee award offset) | David: equitable tinkering undermines party autonomy and settlement finality; trial court abused its authority | Cathleen: equitable relief appropriate given harsh financial result and lack of changed economic circumstances | Held for David: court should not alter clear, mutual PSA terms absent compelling reason (no such reason here); reversed Appellate Division’s sanctioning of suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (1999) (PSA provision terminating alimony upon cohabitation is enforceable when voluntary and knowing)
- Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149 (1983) (modification/cessation of alimony for cohabitation requires economic support/subsidy—focus on changed financial circumstances)
- Pacifico v. Pacifico, 190 N.J. 258 (2007) (matrimonial settlement agreements are contracts; courts must discern parties’ intent and may apply contract principles with leniency)
- Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) (criteria for modification of alimony: continuing change in circumstances and whether agreement/decree made explicit provision)
- Petersen v. Petersen, 85 N.J. 638 (1981) (public policy favors enforcement of consensual matrimonial arrangements but equity can limit unfair terms)