Background - Married 1996; divorce filed 2011. Wife left workforce circa 1997 to raise children; husband (Defendant D.C.) was a high‑earning consultant (reported $371,927–$608,932 in 2008–2011). - Husband received a promotion and a grant of 14,492 restricted share units (RSUs) effective Jan. 1, 2011 that vest 2011–2017. Wife sought one‑half of the RSUs as marital property. - Parties jointly owned a New York ski house (Windham House) purchased in 2004; deed listed four tenants in common (husband, wife, husband’s brother John, and John’s wife). Dispute over whether ownership shares were equal or part of a joint venture. - Trial court: awarded wife 50% of marital RSU grant (to be monetized/paid as units vest), awarded wife one‑quarter of Windham House value, awarded wife alimony (base + additional 33% of "total compensation from all sources" above base with a $672,000 after‑tax cap), ordered husband to pay experts/parenting coordinator fees and to maintain life insurance. - On appeal, husband challenged RSU distribution, Windham House characterization, several alimony aspects (inclusion of RSU value, 33% formula, cap, duration), and fee allocations/appointment of court expert/mediator. Court affirms in part, reverses/remands limited alimony issues. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Are the Jan. 2011 RSUs marital property subject to equitable distribution? | RSUs awarded during marriage in recognition of performance are marital and divisible. | RSUs were a one‑time, future‑performance incentive and therefore post‑marriage income or immune from distribution. | Affirmed: documentary evidence showed grants were awarded for past/recognized performance (vesting only requires continued employment); RSUs are marital and 50% awarded to Wife. | | Is the Windham House a joint venture (unequal shares) or tenants in common (equal shares)? | Wife: deed and testimony support equal tenancy in common; no written joint venture agreement. | Husband: alleged unequal contributions and a joint‑venture arrangement producing unequal ownership. | Affirmed: no writing or proof of joint venture elements (no profit sharing/enterprise); deed and testimony support equal tenancy in common; wife awarded 25% (1/4) of house value. | | Should RSU vesting value be treated as "income from all sources" for calculating additional alimony (and was the 33% formula and $672,000 cap proper)? | Distinguishes pre‑complaint RSUs (equitable distribution) from post‑complaint awards (can be income); proposed 33% of post‑complaint equity compensation. | Husband: treating vesting RSUs as alimony income where half is distributed is double dipping; challenges use of a percentage formula and the cap as untethered. | Mixed: Court interprets it treated pre‑complaint RSUs as divisible and post‑complaint RSUs as income. Appellate court remands for clarification: (1) define "all sources" for additional alimony, (2) explain/justify 33% formula, and (3) set a properly supported cap tied to lifestyle/earning capacity. | | Was appointment of an economic expert/mediator and allocation of expert and parenting‑coordinator fees to Husband proper? | Wife: expert appointment and allocation appropriate given husband's failure to produce coherent proofs and income documentation; economic disparity supports fee allocation. | Husband: appointment after trial and mediator role created conflict; fees improperly allocated entirely to him. | Affirmed: trial court acted within Rule 5:3‑3 authority to appoint an expert; fee allocation to Husband not an abuse of discretion given his failure to produce documentation, inconsistent submissions, and relative finances. | ### Key Cases Cited Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (court gives deference to trial judge's findings) Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (credibility determinations warrant appellate deference) Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583 (property attributable to marital effort is distributable) Painter v. Painter, 65 N.J. 196 (marital effort standard for division of property) Elkin v. Sabo, 310 N.J. Super. 462 (analysis of stock/option awards: past vs. future performance) Heller‑Loren v. Apuzzio, 371 N.J. Super. 518 (stock options generally subject to equitable distribution) Innes v. Innes, 117 N.J. 496 (addresses double‑counting concerns when property is both distributable and considered for support) Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (standards for alimony modification) Crews v. Crews, 164 N.J. 11 (alimony modification and changed circumstances) Ackerman v. Landes, 112 A.D.2d 1081 (NY standard for joint venture elements) * Konczyk v. Konczyk, 367 N.J. Super. 512 (life insurance beneficiary issues in enforcement of alimony obligations)