Marital Lifestyle and Its Impact on Child Support Payments: A New Jersey Case Study | Marc LLP

A lawsuit for divorce was filed in New Jersey in 2018, ending another longtime marriage. This particular marriage produced three children, all emancipated by the time the divorce suit began, and was funded entirely by the husband’s income. That income ranged from $1 million to $2 million on an annual basis, averaging $1,313,000 in the five years prior to filing for divorce. Its earnings were also used annually to fund the lifestyle of the parties. At the time of the divorce proceedings, no pension accounts existed because they had been closed to finance living expenses. The husband and wife estimated monthly expenses at $80,853 and $92,147, respectively.

The course of the case shows that the trial court awarded permanent alimony, aided by the “extremely long duration” of the marriage and the “relatively opulent” lifestyles of the parties, which “represented the whole [Husband’s] Income.” The court also found that the wife could not earn money because she had been “unemployed for decades.” Based on the foregoing, the trial court issued an order for permanent alimony at $450,000 annually, based on a Income of $1,313,000, but specifically failed to quantify lifestyle.

On appeal, the determination of alimony was reversed because no correlation was established between the parties’ expenses and the award of alimony, and therefore it could not be determined how the calculated alimony was derived. The pretrial detention asked the trial court to make a numerical determination of the marital way of life and then to explain whether and how the alimony payment corresponds to that way of life.

New Jersey jurisprudence is well established regarding the correlation between marital style and alimony, stating that “the fundamental purpose of alimony is the continuation of the standard of living enjoyed by the parties prior to their separation”1 and ” to assist the sponsored spouse in achieving a lifestyle reasonably comparable to that experienced when living with the sponsored spouse during the marriage.”2

Of particular importance to the present case was the explanation of the characteristics of the lifestyle and the quantification of each component therein, including those financed by means other than the husband’s income, such as: B. Borrowing and Liquidating Accounts and Other Assets. These were the Court of Appeal’s instructions to the Court of Inquiry on remand.

The trial court then increased the husband’s maintenance obligation towards the wife, but at the same time awarded the husband the support of the Pendente Lite in drafting the revised order. By way of explanation, the court acknowledged that the parties had lived beyond their means during the marriage and charged a reliance on the wife’s living expenses after the separation. The wife contended that the new order of trial did not follow the Court of Appeals’ instructions and should have included an analysis of the marital lifestyle before being awarded a post-divorce budget and alimony.

Again, the Court of Appeal overturned the order of the trial court and remanded it for further hearing. In particular, the Court of Appeals reiterated the trial court’s disregard for the marital budget in preparing its orders and reiterated the applicable lifestyle factors set forth in the relevant New Jersey statutes. The Court of Appeal highlighted the quantification of the components that constitute such a marital lifestyle and when it was appropriate to exclude certain expenses in assessing alimony, such as: B. Payment of private school fees for children.

In summary, the course of proceedings and the length of time between the commencement of divorce proceedings and the dissolution of the marriage were primarily attributable to the trial court’s failure to determine the marital lifestyle, its quantification, and the apportionment of those costs, particularly attributable costs of a party to the children of the marriage or if these costs were financed in some other way. The court is free to use the witness statements of the parties; case information statements submitted by the parties and accepted as evidence; expert analysis and reports; and other relevant information. It may accept or reject this information at its own discretion.

In this case, neither party has engaged an expert and neither party has provided reports or analysis alongside their individual case information. Would the involvement of an expert, the submission of an expert report and the expert testimony have shortened the procedure in this case? There is a case to consider when there is such a problem.

Sources

1. Innes v. Innes, 117 NJ 496, 503 (1990) (citing Mahoney v. Mahoney, 91 NJ 488, 501-02 (1982)).
2. Crews vs. Crews, 164 NJ 11, 16, 751 A.2d 524 (2000).