McGee v. McGee
648 A.2d 1128, 277 N.J. Super. 1 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining equitable distribution and alimony in a divorce following a short-term marriage that was preceded by a long period of cohabitation, a court must consider the parties' entire relationship, including the premarital period, to properly assess their contributions and economic dependency as part of a shared enterprise.
Facts:
- In June 1981, Paul McGee, a medical doctor, and Carol McGee began a relationship.
- In 1982, Carol McGee was facing foreclosure on a house she owned, which was situated on two acres with an adjoining eleven-acre lot.
- To prevent the foreclosure, Paul McGee purchased the property from Carol McGee for the amount of her debt ($62,955), which was significantly less than its estimated value of $150,000. Title was placed in his name alone.
- In February 1983, Paul McGee moved into the house with Carol McGee, and they began cohabiting and functioning as a traditional married couple. Paul McGee provided full financial support.
- In 1984, with Paul McGee's approval, Carol McGee left her employment to oversee extensive renovations on the house and did not return to the workforce.
- Prior to the marriage, Paul McGee refinanced the property and opened a home equity line, withdrawing approximately $134,000 of the home's equity for his own purposes. He later retitled the property in both his and Carol McGee's names.
- During their relationship, Paul McGee's income doubled, while he also paid over $260,000 in support obligations to his former wife and children.
- The parties formally married in 1989, after approximately eight years of cohabitation.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul McGee filed a complaint for divorce against Carol McGee in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division (the trial court).
- The trial court entered a final judgment of divorce that ordered the sale of the marital home, awarded Carol McGee $25,000 as her share of the equity, granted her six months of rehabilitative alimony, and denied her request for additional counsel fees.
- Carol McGee, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment regarding equitable distribution, alimony, and counsel fees to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
- Paul McGee is the 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:
In a divorce proceeding following a short formal marriage but a lengthy period of premarital cohabitation and financial interdependence, must a court consider the parties' premarital history when determining equitable distribution and alimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Long, J.A.D.
Yes. In a divorce proceeding, a court must consider the full factual history of the parties' relationship, including a significant period of premarital cohabitation, to achieve a fair outcome in equitable distribution and alimony. The trial court erred by limiting its analysis to the short duration of the formal marriage. The court failed to properly apply the statutory criteria for equitable distribution by ignoring the parties' ten-year relationship, the fact that Mrs. McGee brought the primary asset into the relationship with significant equity, and that Dr. McGee acquired it from her under duress and subsequently stripped its value. The relationship should be viewed as a 'shared enterprise' that began long before the ceremonial marriage. Similarly, the award of short-term rehabilitative alimony was improper, as it failed to account for Mrs. McGee's age, lack of current job skills, and the long-term economic dependency she developed during the relationship at Dr. McGee's behest. The trial court also erred by failing to apply the established standards for awarding counsel fees and by improperly deducting hypothetical sales costs from the home's value in a buyout situation.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that New Jersey matrimonial courts will look beyond the formalities of a marriage certificate to the substantive reality of the parties' relationship. By endorsing the 'shared enterprise' theory for relationships involving long-term premarital cohabitation, the decision prevents an inequitable windfall for one party due to a short formal marriage. It mandates that trial courts conduct a comprehensive analysis of the entire relationship history when applying statutory factors for equitable distribution and alimony. This precedent ensures that contributions made and dependencies created during a premarital period of cohabitation are not ignored, promoting fairness over formalism in family law.
Unlock the full brief for McGee v. McGee