T.L.H. VS. M.H. (FM-20-0910-13, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4895-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Parties divorced after a 20-year marriage; their Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) required defendant to pay alimony ($500/week, rising to $700/week if plaintiff left the marital home due to foreclosure).
- The MSA defined alimony termination upon death, marriage, or "cohabitation," and explicitly broadened "cohabitation" to include moving in with family members (other than the parties' children) or friends.
- Plaintiff was forced out of the marital home after a sheriff's sale and moved in with her sister, paying $800/month to live there; defendant stopped alimony payments.
- Plaintiff sought enforcement; defendant cross-moved to terminate alimony under the MSA’s cohabitation clause.
- The trial court, finding the MSA language clear and voluntarily agreed to, granted defendant’s cross-motion on the papers, concluding plaintiff’s residence with her sister triggered the MSA cohabitation clause and terminated alimony.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing a plenary hearing was required to resolve factual ambiguity about the parties’ intent and whether economic examination was necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by deciding the cross-motion on the papers without a plenary hearing | There was a genuine factual issue about the parties' intent in defining "cohabitation" that required a hearing | The MSA language is clear and unambiguous; no hearing needed | Court affirmed: MSA terms were clear; no plenary hearing necessary |
| Whether plaintiff’s move into her sister’s home constitutes "cohabitation" under the MSA | Residence with sister is not "cohabitation" absent economic dependence or support; Konzelman standard should apply | The MSA expressly broadened "cohabitation" to include taking residence with family members, so moving in triggers termination | Court held that under the parties' MSA, plaintiff’s residence with her sister triggers the cohabitation termination clause |
| Whether the court should apply the Gayet economic-dependence rule despite an MSA clause terminating alimony on cohabitation | Gayet requires economic support/subsidy to terminate alimony; that inquiry was necessary | Parties bargained to define cohabitation differently; Quinn allows enforcement of such agreements without importing Gayet | Court applied Quinn: enforcement of a clear, unambiguous MSA term is proper; Gayet rule not imported when parties agreed otherwise |
| Whether the MSA should be reformed due to fraud, duress, or unconscionability | Plaintiff suggested intent ambiguity; alleged hardship (denial of disability benefits) | Defendant pointed to representations in MSA that agreement was voluntary, informed, and without coercion | Court found no allegation or proof of fraud/duress/overreaching; no basis to reform the contract |
Key Cases Cited
- Quinn v. Quinn, 225 N.J. 34 (N.J. 2016) (enforcing MSA termination-on-cohabitation clauses entered by informed parties without fraud or coercion)
- Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (N.J. 1999) (defining cohabitation standard in divorce contexts)
- Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149 (N.J. 1983) (permitting alimony modification/cessation for post-divorce cohabitation when one cohabitant subsidizes the other)
- Pacifico v. Pacifico, 190 N.J. 258 (N.J. 2007) (settlement agreements governed by contract principles; hearings when ambiguity exists)
- Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408 (N.J. 1999) (reforming agreements for unconscionability, fraud, or overreaching)
- Tessmar v. Grosner, 23 N.J. 193 (N.J. 1957) (courts enforce parties' common intention in agreements)
- Kampf v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 33 N.J. 36 (N.J. 1960) (principles on enforcing agreements as written)