Groh v. Groh
106 A.3d 1286
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2014Background
- Parties (plaintiff and defendant) entered a civil union in 2008 and in 2013 each sought dissolution by irreconcilable differences; they resolved other issues and jointly requested dual judgments of dissolution.
- N.J.S.A. 2A:34-2.1 enumerates statutory grounds for civil-union dissolution but does not expressly list irreconcilable differences.
- At the time the Civil Union Act was enacted (Dec. 21, 2006) neither divorce nor civil-union dissolution by irreconcilable differences existed; the divorce statute was amended Jan. 20, 2007 to add irreconcilable differences.
- N.J.S.A. 37:1-33 directs that references to “marriage” include civil unions, and the Governor’s signing statement and AOC guidance indicated the irreconcilable-differences amendment was intended to apply to civil unions.
- The court found the omission of irreconcilable differences from N.J.S.A. 2A:34-2.1 was likely an inadvertent drafting oversight; refusing the ground would conflict with Lewis v. Harris and equal-protection principles and frustrate public policy favoring no-fault settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the family court has authority to dissolve a civil union on the no-fault ground of irreconcilable differences | Irreconcilable differences should apply to civil unions because the Legislature intended parity with marriage and omission was inadvertent | Statutory text (N.J.S.A. 2A:34-2.1) does not expressly include irreconcilable differences, so the court lacks authority | Court held family court may dissolve a civil union on irreconcilable differences; granted dual judgment of dissolution |
| Whether omission of irreconcilable differences from N.J.S.A. 2A:34-2.1 creates an unconstitutional disparity with married couples | Applying irreconcilable differences to civil unions avoids unequal treatment under Lewis v. Harris | Literal reading would permit unequal treatment | Court applied constitutional/equal-protection principles to read the amendment as applicable to civil unions |
| Whether extrinsic materials (signing statement, AOC guidance) support extending the amendment to civil unions | Executive and administrative interpretations show intended applicability to civil unions | Reliance on extrinsic materials cannot override plain statutory text | Court found extrinsic materials persuasive in showing legislative intent and practical application |
| Whether public policy favors permitting no-fault dissolution for civil unions | No-fault dissolutions encourage settlement, reduce cost and hostility, and serve public policy | Strict textualism avoids judicial statutory amendment | Court concluded policy supports interpreting the law to permit no-fault dissolution for civil unions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (recognizing that committed same-sex partners must have rights similar to married couples)
- Hubbard ex rel. Hubbard v. Reed, 168 N.J. 387 (statutory construction should avoid absurd or illogical results)
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. (federal case prompting broader recognition of same-sex marriage rights)
- Garden State Equality v. Dow, 434 N.J. Super. 163 (New Jersey decision recognizing same-sex marriage rights under state law)
- Guiseppi v. Walling, 144 F.2d 608 (observing hazards of strictly literal statutory reading)