Clark v. Clark, 429 N.J. Super. 61 (App. Div. 2012). Generally, “marital fault is irrelevant” to a determination of alimony. However, in Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70 (2005), the Supreme Court recognized two exceptions to that general rule: “cases in which the fault has affected the parties’ economic life and cases in which the fault so violates societal norms that continuing the economic bonds between the parties would confound notions of simple justice.” Those exceptions were encapsulated into the term “egregious fault.”
In this case, the defendant wife “conceived and carried out a long-term scheme to embezzle the cash receipts from [a business in which both parties were involved], which deprived plaintiff of the immediate fruits of his daily labors and impinged on the viability of the joint business asset and the family’s future security.” Despite that, the Family Part awarded her alimony. Plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed and remanded for further consideration of whether defendant’s actions constituted “egregious fault” that would have called for a denial, or at least a reduction, of alimony.
Writing for the panel, Judge Lihotz colorfully described defendant’s conduct as having “kicked [the couple’s] economic security in the teeth.” Defendant’s conduct here, “though economically based,” went well beyond “gambling, excessive spending, waste of marital assets, or other acts of bad judgment” that, Judge Lihotz stated, would not amount to “egregious fault.” Such “significant, willful wrongdoing, designed to fraudulently and purposefully deprive one’s spouse of the economic benefits of the marital partnership,” would violate societal norms and equate to egregious fault.
The Appellate Division remanded the case back to the Family Part to determine whether, under those standards, defendant was guilty of “egregious fault.” If so, the Family Part was directed to consider whether defendant’s conduct “obviates the propriety of an award of alimony,” or what impact that conduct should have on an alimony award, should such an award be considered appropriate at all.
The opinion contains an extensive discussion of the abuse of discretion standard of review, and of the broad deference that appellate courts normally give to factual determinations of the Family Part. Many opinions discuss the standards of review, but this ruling by Judge Lihotz is especially comprehensive in that regard and contains material that may be useful even for non-matrimonial cases.