SYLVIA STEINER VS. DAVID S. STEINER (FM-07-2818-18, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2440-20

Background

Sylvia and David Steiner married in 1955; at trial Sylvia was in her mid‑80s and David over 90; the marital estate exceeded $100–130 million.
Sylvia (who never worked outside the home) filed for divorce in June 2018 asserting irreconcilable differences; David contested the grounds.
The presiding Family Part judge bifurcated the cause‑of‑action (grounds) from financial/economic issues; the trial addressed only whether statutory grounds existed.
After a multi‑day bench trial the Family Part judge found Sylvia credible, concluded irreconcilable differences existed for at least six months with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation, and entered a judgment of divorce; the judge also awarded Sylvia counsel fees.
On appeal David argued (1) the divorce finding was against the weight of the evidence, (2) the court improperly excluded evidence about their daughter Ellen’s role, (3) bifurcation was improper, and (4) the attorney‑fee award was erroneous.
The Appellate Division affirmed the divorce, held bifurcation and evidentiary rulings were not erroneous, but vacated the fee award and remanded for limited reconsideration of fees tied to specific bad‑faith/delay conduct.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Steiner)	Defendant's Argument (Steiner)	Held
1. Whether the trial court's finding of irreconcilable differences was against the weight of the evidence	Sylvia argued her testimony showed long‑standing money, control, and treatment‑of‑children disputes that were irreconcilable	David argued the divorce was a sham/collusive, driven by Ellen, and inconsistent conduct (living together, socializing, caregiving) disproved irreconcilable differences	Affirmed: trial judge credited Sylvia; deference given to credibility findings and testimonial evidence; sufficient evidence supported the finding
2. Whether the court improperly excluded testimony/evidence about Ellen's involvement	Sylvia contended Ellen was not the driving force and that the court allowed relevant inquiry	David contended the court curtailed defense proof of undue influence by Ellen	Denied: court permitted extensive inquiry and exhibits on Ellen; exclusion was limited and not outcome‑determinative; no manifest injustice shown
3. Whether bifurcation of grounds from financial issues was improper	Sylvia urged bifurcation to resolve grounds first for judicial economy given parties' ages and massive estate	David argued bifurcation was unusual and improper under Rule 5:7‑8	Affirmed: presiding judge acted within discretion, good cause shown (elderly parties, potential to avoid massive discovery/trial if no grounds)
4. Whether the fee award to Sylvia was proper	Sylvia sought full fee recovery based largely on finding of David's bad faith in opposing the cause‑of‑action	David argued (and App. Div. agreed) that losing on the merits alone does not establish bad faith and that both parties could afford counsel	Vacated in part and remanded: wholesale fee award was an abuse of discretion because ability to pay and lack of need weighed against it; remand limited to fees tied to discrete bad‑faith/delay conduct (e.g., last‑minute attempts to halt trial)

Key Cases Cited

N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. Twp. of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541 (statutory interpretation; read words in context and apply generally accepted meaning)
Cabell v. Markham, 148 F.2d 737 (2d Cir.) (advocates holistic statutory interpretation beyond dictionary fortresses)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (appellate review limits for family‑court factfinding)
Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414 (family court credibility findings binding when supported by credible evidence)
Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20 (trial court better positioned to evaluate witness veracity)
In re J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108 (deference where evidence is largely testimonial)
Carr v. Carr, 120 N.J. 336 (recognition of complex probate/economic issues following divorce bifurcation)
Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Co., 239 N.J. 531 (standard for manifest denial of justice)
Thompson v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 229 N.J. Super. 230 (scope of discretionary review)