Cox v. Cox
762 A.2d 1040, 335 N.J. Super. 465 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Limited duration alimony may not be awarded as a substitute for permanent alimony in a long-term marriage where the statutory factors, including the duration of the marriage and the dependent spouse's contributions to the marital partnership, would otherwise justify a permanent alimony award.
Facts:
- Margaret M. Cox and Harry E. Cox were married in 1977.
- During the twenty-two year marriage, Harry Cox worked as a crane operator, earning approximately $120,000 per year.
- After the parties' child started first grade, Margaret Cox returned to work in various part-time jobs to help support the household.
- In 1989, Margaret began attending college and then law school, graduating in 1998 with approximately $100,000 in student loan debt.
- The parties separated in 1996.
- During the marriage, the couple enjoyed a comfortable standard of living, including regular vacations and dining out, which Margaret could no longer afford after the separation.
Procedural Posture:
- Margaret M. Cox filed a complaint for dissolution of marriage against Harry E. Cox in the New Jersey Superior Court, a trial court.
- Following a trial, the trial judge ordered Harry Cox to pay Margaret Cox limited duration alimony of $200 per week for a period of five years.
- Margaret M. Cox, as Plaintiff-Appellant, appealed the trial court's alimony determination to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
- Harry E. Cox is the Defendant-Respondent in the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an award of limited duration alimony appropriate following a long-term marriage of twenty-two years where there is a significant disparity in the parties' incomes and earning capacities?
Opinions:
Majority - Carchman, J.A.D.
No. An award of limited duration alimony is inappropriate following a long-term marriage where permanent alimony would otherwise be warranted. The court held that the 1999 statutory amendment creating limited duration alimony was intended for shorter-term marriages and explicitly prohibits its use as a substitute for permanent alimony in long-term marriages. The defining distinction between whether permanent or limited duration alimony is warranted is the duration of the marriage, assuming other statutory factors are in equipoise. The trial court erred by failing to first consider and make specific findings as to why permanent alimony was not warranted before considering other forms of alimony. Furthermore, the trial judge's reasoning was flawed because it focused on rehabilitative goals—enabling the plaintiff to establish herself as an attorney—rather than recognizing the plaintiff's contributions to the twenty-two year 'marital partnership' which is the basis for permanent support.
Analysis:
This case provides a seminal interpretation of New Jersey's 1999 alimony statute amendment, clarifying the distinct roles of permanent and limited duration alimony. It establishes that the duration of the marriage is the critical factor and prevents courts from using limited duration alimony as a tool to prematurely terminate support obligations in long-term marriages. The decision reinforces the 'marital partnership' theory as the foundation for permanent alimony and sets a mandatory procedural requirement for trial courts: they must first analyze and explicitly reject permanent alimony before considering a limited duration award. This holding protects economically dependent spouses in long-term marriages from the inappropriate application of a remedy designed for shorter unions.
