Elizabeth Gnall v. James Gnall
432 N.J. Super. 129
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2013Background
- Parties married 1993; three children (now minors); marriage ~15 years; trial followed a 17-day hearing. Judgment awarded limited-duration alimony (11 years), child support (guidelines + supplemental), and divided bonuses; plaintiff appealed and defendant cross-appealed.
- Plaintiff has advanced degrees and prior high-earning tech work but left full-time employment in 1999 to care for children; she asserts her programming skills are stale and proposed teacher retraining (online program). Experts differed on retraining time/cost and likely starting salary as a returning tech worker.
- Defendant is a high-earning CFO whose compensation included significant discretionary cash bonuses and deferred equity; bonuses grew substantially in later years, and some bonus payments were deposited to his sole account.
- Trial judge found an "upper-middle-class" marital lifestyle with monthly needs for plaintiff and children of $18,000; imputed $65,000 annual income to plaintiff and awarded $18,000/month limited-duration alimony terminating when youngest leaves for college; alimony not modifiable for increases in plaintiff’s earnings.
- Court (post-judgment) corrected basic child support and ordered supplemental support with significant portions to be deposited into children’s UGMAs; treated portions of 2007/2008 bonuses variably (2008 portion prorated to pre-filing period; 2007 split previously used pendente lite).
- Appellate court: affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded for further findings — principally reversed limited-duration alimony and remanded to reconsider permanent alimony; remanded on imputation start date, supplemental support findings, 2007 bonus allocation, and life-insurance allocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether limited-duration alimony was proper vs. permanent alimony | Fifteen-year marriage and plaintiff's economic dependence warrant permanent alimony | Marriage length and parties' youth justify limited-duration award | Reversed: 15-year marriage is not "short-term"; trial court erred by foreclosing permanent alimony; remand to reconsider permanent alimony (make specific statutory findings) |
| Imputation of income to plaintiff and its effective date | Imputation to $65,000 annual was premature; she needed retraining and should have time before income imputed | Court properly imputed $65,000 based on experts' ranges | Affirmed the $65,000 imputation amount but reversed the immediate effective date; remand to set commencement after considering retraining time/costs |
| Child support: guideline base, supplemental amount, and restriction of supplemental funds to UGMA deposits | Supplemental award too restricted; plaintiff should control supplemental funds for children's needs | Supplemental award appropriate given high income; deposit practice reflected marital saving for education | Basic guideline amount affirmed (subject to recomputation if alimony changes); remanded to state factual basis for supplemental amount, explain why restricted to UGMA deposits, and reconcile change after correction |
| Treatment/division of 2007 and 2008 bonuses | 2007 bonus should be treated as marital asset/equitable distribution (not pendente lite support); 2008 bonus should not be offset by pendente lite payments | 2008 bonus largely non-marital (negotiated post-filing/promotion); 2007 funds were used for pendente lite support so plaintiff’s share was offset | Affirmed trial court’s treatment of 2008 bonus; remanded for findings on 2007 bonus allocation and the pendente lite/equitable distribution interaction |
| Imputation vs. plaintiff’s chosen career path (teaching) | Court should have imputed income based on plaintiff's teaching plan | Imputation must reflect earning capacity, not employment preferences | Held imputation should be based on earning capacity (court may rely on return-to-tech projections); plaintiff free to pursue teaching but cannot avoid support obligations |
| Attorney fees award | Plaintiff sought fees; defendant contested | Defendant contested fee award | Affirmed trial court’s award requiring defendant to pay plaintiff’s outstanding attorney fees |
| Life insurance to secure support | N/A (plaintiff benefited) | Defendant sought reduction/clarification of insurance amount and beneficiary allocations | Remanded to address defendant’s reconsideration request and to allocate total required insurance among plaintiff and children; clarify beneficiary language and potential annual reductions |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (court defers to trial court factual findings)
- Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70 (alimony purpose: maintain economic standard created by marriage)
- J.E.V. v. K.V., 426 N.J. Super. 475 (analysis distinguishing permanent and limited-duration alimony)
- Cox v. Cox, 335 N.J. Super. 465 (limited-duration alimony legislative purpose and limits)
- Gordon v. Rozenwald, 380 N.J. Super. 55 (background on limited-duration alimony)
- Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250 (imputation: just cause and factors for voluntary unemployment)
- Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292 (standard for appellate review of counsel-fee awards)