145 A.3d 709
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2016Background
- Married in 1990; three children (ages 20, 18, 15 at FJOD). Divorce trial lasted 28 days; Final Judgment of Divorce (FJOD) entered March 7, 2014; appeals followed.
- Husband (Anthony) earned very high compensation (roughly $1.087M–$2.275M in five years before filing); wife (Lisa) left full-time work early in marriage, later earned ~$10,000/year part-time and is primary custodial parent.
- During the marriage the parties habitually saved roughly $67,000/month, accumulating about $4.18M in liquid savings at the time of the FJOD; their monthly living expenditures (exclusive of savings) were ~$22,900.
- Parties agreed plaintiff would receive permanent alimony and an equal division of most marital estate, but disputed the alimony amount, whether savings should be part of alimony, allocation of child expenses, distribution of two accounts, and counsel fees.
- Family Part awarded permanent alimony of $7,600/month but excluded a savings component despite finding the parties regularly saved as part of their marital lifestyle; court reasoned savings need be included only to protect future payment of alimony (not implicated here).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether regular marital savings must be included as a component of alimony when savings were an established part of marital lifestyle | Savings that were part of marital lifestyle must be included so supported spouse can continue comparable standard of living | Savings need only be included to the extent necessary to protect future alimony (e.g., against cessation or modification) | Court held regular, reasonable savings that were part of the marital lifestyle must be considered in alimony determination even absent a specific need to secure future payments |
| Whether equitable distribution of savings accounts can substitute for including savings in alimony | Savings as part of alimony cannot be displaced by equitable distribution; both parties are entitled to lifestyle support | Court’s equitable distribution addressed resources, so separate savings as alimony was unnecessary | Court rejected substitution: equitable distribution is not a substitute for alimony’s role in maintaining marital lifestyle |
| Whether trial court permissibly excluded savings given post-divorce earning/investment opportunities and other protections | Exclusion deprived plaintiff of sharing husband's continued economic opportunity and marital standard of living | Court argued plaintiff could save through other means (investment of distributive award, increased work, tax exemptions) and was protected by life insurance and large assets | Court vacated alimony award and remanded for reconsideration including savings in lifestyle analysis; made no prediction on amounts |
| Whether other related rulings (child support allocation, distribution of two accounts, counsel fees) should stand without reconsideration | Plaintiff challenged child expense allocation and distribution of two accounts and denial of counsel fees | Defendant defended FJOD; sought credit on one account if remanded | Court vacated and remanded those issues for reconsideration alongside alimony recalculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobitti v. Jacobitti, 135 N.J. 571 (1994) (recognizes accumulation of reasonable savings may be included to protect supported spouse against loss of alimony)
- Martindell v. Martindell, 21 N.J. 341 (1956) (historic recognition that savings can be part of support considerations)
- Davis v. Davis, 184 N.J. Super. 430 (App. Div. 1982) (upholds directions to secure support via life insurance or savings to protect dependent spouse)
- Crews v. Crews, 164 N.J. 11 (2000) (standard of living during marriage is touchstone for alimony awards)
- Steneken v. Steneken, 183 N.J. 290 (2005) (equitable distribution is in addition to, not a substitute for, alimony which maintains the marital lifestyle)
- Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414 (2015) (trial court must methodically consider statutory factors in awarding alimony)
- Glass v. Glass, 366 N.J. Super. 357 (App. Div.) (2004) (savings may properly be treated as a living expense in alimony determinations)
- Weishaus v. Weishaus, 360 N.J. Super. 281 (App. Div.) (2003) (court should consider elements defining marital lifestyle when setting support)