Jordana Elrom v. Elad Elrom
110 A.3d 69
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2015Background
- Parties married 2005, separated 2010; two young children (one with significant allergies); plaintiff (Jordana) primary residential parent.
- Plaintiff is an attorney who had shifted to part-time/was unemployed before trial; last full‑time NJ associate salary was $80,640 (she requested that be imputed).
- Defendant (Elad) is a software engineer/entrepreneur who had variable income from W-2 jobs, consulting, royalties, and business receipts; documentary gaps and limited disclosure at trial.
- Forensic accountant for plaintiff analyzed business deposits and estimated higher income for defendant; defendant produced experts who opined lower earning capacity but did not fully account for his consulting/contract opportunities.
- Trial judge imputed annual incomes: $80,640 to plaintiff and $230,731.42 to defendant; awarded limited-duration alimony ($1,000/wk) and child support ($697/wk) that included work-related child care and half of extracurricular costs; court equitably divided minimal marital assets.
- Appellate court affirmed imputation and equitable distribution findings but reversed the addition of child-care and extracurricular expenses as supplemental support and remanded limitedly for findings and crediting repayment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputation of income to defendant for support | Impute based on historic receipts and earning capacity (supports high imputation) | Court should accept defendant’s last W-2/base salary (~$120,000); imputation improper because he was employed | Affirmed: imputation to $230,731.42 supported by deposits, historic earnings, defendant’s admissions, credibility findings and discretion to impute (self‑employment, withheld discovery justified imputation) |
| Imputation of income to plaintiff | Limit imputation to NJ associate last full‑time salary ($80,640) given childcare and need to stay local | Impute higher based on past NYC earnings and general NY attorney salary ranges | Affirmed: $80,640 appropriate given plaintiff’s recent part‑time/unemployed status, young/special‑needs children, limited parenting time for defendant, and court’s credible rejection of expert’s NY wage estimate |
| Inclusion of work‑related child‑care costs and extracurricular fees as supplemental child support | Needed to preserve children’s routine; plaintiff not working due to trial/job search | Erroneous to add such costs while custodial parent unemployed; extracurriculars are ordinarily subsumed in basic support | Reversed as to supplemental child‑care and extracurricular allocations: Guidelines preclude adding work‑related child care while custodial parent unemployed; ordinary extracurricular/entertainment costs are within basic support. Remanded for findings and credits for any unsupported payments |
| Equitable distribution of marital assets | (Plaintiff) Receive retirement accounts and offsets for items she retained | (Defendant) Challenges retention of plaintiff’s retirement accounts and offsets for items in parties’ possession | Affirmed: trial court performed Rothman analysis, found most of plaintiff’s retirement sums premarital, assets minimal so offsets and division were reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (appellate review of trial court factual findings in family cases; deference to trial judge credibility determinations)
- Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250 (2005) (authority to impute income based on earning capacity for support purposes)
- Storey v. Storey, 373 N.J. Super. 464 (App. Div.) (2004) (imputation requires realistic appraisal of earning capacity and job availability)
- Gnall v. Gnall, 432 N.J. Super. 129 (App. Div.) (2013) (affirming imputation based on past salary/earning capacity)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standard for reversal where findings are manifestly unsupported)