Jev v. Kv
426 N.J. Super. 475
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2012Background
- Marriage lasted nine and a half years; two children; youngest turns 18 in 2019; defendant has bipolar disorder but trial found she can return to work; trial court awarded ten-year limited duration alimony; plaintiff earned substantially more and supported the family; disputed whether alimony should be permanent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether limited duration alimony was appropriate | K.V. argues permanent alimony warranted | J.E.V. contends mental health warrants permanent alimony | Ten-year limited duration alimony affirmed |
| Mallamo credit for pendente lite tax reserve underpayment | Defendant seeks credit for underpayment | Credit not warranted | Mallamo credit denied; no recalculation warranted |
| Counsel and expert fees amount | Fees requested were reasonable | Fees excessive | Award affirmed; reasonable under circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Cox, 335 N.J. Super. 465 (App.Div.2000) (limited duration alimony appropriate for intermediate-length marriages; distinction from permanent alimony highlighted)
- Gordon v. Rozenwald, 380 N.J. Super. 55 (App.Div.2005) (limits of limited duration alimony; marriage length as key factor)
- Hughes v. Hughes, 311 N.J. Super. 15 (App.Div.1998) (economic dependency and partnership concepts in alimony)
- Crews v. Crews, 164 N.J. 11 (2000) (economic need and marital partnership framework for alimony)
- Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408 (1999) (emphasizes need to consider earning capacity and marriage contribution)
- Steneken v. Steneken, 183 N.J. 290 (2005) (lifestyle comparison and duration considerations in alimony)
- Mallamo v. Mallamo, 280 N.J. Super. 8 (App.Div.1995) (pendente lite support modification considerations)