Clark v. Clark, 429 N.J. Super. 61

Divorce after 28 years of marriage; final judgment (2011) required plaintiff to pay $600/week alimony to defendant.
Plaintiff discovered defendant embezzled from Grayrock Pharmacy, totals exceeding $345,000; court ordered defendant to repay half to plaintiff as equitable distribution offset.
Grayrock was family-owned; defendant was bookkeeper; cash discrepancies and missing records supported plaintiff’s claims of covert withdrawals.
Two trial judges heard the case; trial court imputed income to defendant and ordered alimony and asset distribution (including repayment for dissipated funds).
Plaintiff appeals alimony award, arguing egregious fault should bar alimony or require offset against defendant’s debt; court remands for reconsideration of alimony with fault as a factor.
Court ultimately reverses alimony award and remands for further proceedings to determine if egregious fault exists and, if so, whether alimony should be denied or offset; remaining equitable distribution provisions affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does egregious marital fault bar alimony?	Clark argues egregious fault by Clark justifies denial of alimony.	Lockwood Clark contends fault may be considered but does not necessarily deny alimony.	Yes, egregious fault can preclude alimony on remand.
Should alimony be offset by defendant’s embezzled funds?	Clark requests offset by amount defendant owes him from theft.	Lockwood Clark asserts no automatic offset; needs remand review.	Remand with potential offset considerations.
Was defendant’s dissipation of assets properly considered in equitable distribution?	Disallow dissipation, or increase plaintiff’s share due to fraud.	Dissipation findings were properly supported; no major error.	No reversal; distribution upheld aside from alimony issue.
Should the case be remanded for recalculation of alimony after assessing egregious fault?	Proceed with recalculation or denial based on egregious fault.	Fault assessment may alter alimony determination.	Yes, remand for fault-based reconsideration of alimony.

Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70 (N.J. 2005) (fault generally irrelevant to alimony, with narrow exceptions for egregious conduct or life-impacting misconduct)
Reid v. Reid, 310 N.J. Super. 12 (N.J. App. Div. 1998) (consideration of marital fault in denying alimony where conduct is extraordinary)
Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276 (N.J. 1997) (recognizes fault considerations in alimony, limited scope)
Heuer v. Heuer, 152 N.J. 226 (N.J. 1998) (unclean hands doctrine in equitable relief; equity requires clean hands)
Chrisomalis v. Chrisomalis, 260 N.J. Super. 50 (N.J. App. Div. 1992) (equity requires fair dealing and avoidance of wrongdoing in proceedings)