Michael J. Thieme v. Bernice F. Aucoin-Thieme(076683)
151 A.3d 545
| N.J. | 2016Background
- Thieme worked at IBG from 1999, worked long hours, had no ownership but a 2002 “Statement of Understanding” promised future compensation if the company were sold.
- Thieme and Aucoin-Thieme cohabited for ~8 years, had a child in 2003, then married in 2010 and divorced 14 months later; during cohabitation Aucoin‑Thieme primarily cared for the child and managed the household.
- In April 2012 the parties executed a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) and the judgment of divorce was entered in June 2012; the PSA did not address deferred compensation.
- Three months after the divorce IBG sold and paid Thieme a $2,250,000 “Closing Bonus,” which Thieme did not disclose; Aucoin‑Thieme withdrew $200,000 from a joint account and kept $30,288 after litigation.
- Family Part found the Bonus was earned over Thieme’s entire employment, awarded Aucoin‑Thieme 30% of the post-tax portion attributable to the 14‑month marriage, and required return of the remainder withdrawn; Appellate Division affirmed in part.
- Supreme Court: affirmed that equitable distribution under N.J.S.A. 2A:34‑23(h) covers only compensation earned during the marriage, but ordered imposition of a constructive trust for a portion of the Bonus earned during the cohabitation period to avoid unjust enrichment and remanded for allocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thieme) | Defendant's Argument (Aucoin‑Thieme) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable distribution statute (N.J.S.A. 2A:34‑23(h)) reaches deferred compensation earned before marriage | Statute limits distribution to property acquired "during the marriage"; premarital earnings are not marital property | Premarital earnings tied to the parties' shared enterprise and expectation of compensation should be treated as marital or distributable | Held for Thieme: statute allows distribution only for portion earned during the marriage; premarital portion is not subject to N.J.S.A. 2A:34‑23(h) |
| Whether cohabitation in contemplation of marriage converts premarital assets into marital assets subject to equitable distribution | Statutory text controls; any expansion should be legislative | Relied on Weiss/Berrie: parties’ joint planning and contributions make premarital assets distributable | Held for Thieme: Weiss and Berrie don’t support treating premarital deferred compensation as marital property under the statute |
| Whether Aucoin‑Thieme may recover part of the premarital portion of the Bonus via equitable doctrines (unjust enrichment/constructive trust) | Denies availability; contends equitable claims fail on proof | Argues unjust enrichment/constructive trust appropriate given reliance, shared expectations, and her contributions during cohabitation | Held for Aucoin‑Thieme in equity: trial court to impose a constructive trust over a percentage of the Bonus earned during cohabitation to prevent unjust enrichment; remanded to quantify period/percentage and tax effects |
| Remedy and scope on remand | Limited to statutory equitable distribution for marital portion only | Requests constructive trust allocation for premarital/cohabitation period and flexible equitable relief | Court: affirmed statutory award for marital portion; reversed to permit imposition of constructive trust for premarital/cohabitation portion and remanded for factual allocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. Carr, 120 N.J. 336 (N.J. 1990) (constructive trust appropriate where statutory remedies unavailable and retention would cause unjust enrichment)
- Rothman v. Rothman, 65 N.J. 219 (N.J. 1974) (three‑step equitable distribution framework)
- Smith v. Smith, 72 N.J. 350 (N.J. 1977) (marriage as shared enterprise informing equitable distribution policy)
- Weiss v. Weiss, 226 N.J. Super. 281 (App. Div. 1988) (premarital acquisition may be included in distribution where asset acquired in contemplation of marriage — limited to facts)
- Berrie v. Berrie, 252 N.J. Super. 635 (App. Div. 1991) (increase in premarital business value may be treated as partnership interest where spouse’s premarital contributions warrant it)
- Crowe v. De Gioia, 90 N.J. 126 (N.J. 1982) (equitable distribution statute does not embrace contract claims between unmarried cohabitants)