Lombardi v. Lombardi, 447 N.J. Super. 26 (App. Div. 2016). “[A]limony is neither a punishment for the payor nor a reward for the payee…. It is a right arising out of the marriage relationship to continue to live according to the economic standard established during the marriage.” Judge Rothstadt’s opinion in this case today quoted this passage from a prior Appellate Division case. While married, the parties here had substantial income. But they jointly decided to live relatively frugally and to save substantial amounts, so that the husband could retire early, so that there would be money for potential health problems at a later stage of their lives, or both. The question on this appeal (or at least in the published portion of the opinion; other issues were addressed in a longer, unpublished version) was whether, upon their divorce, the wife’s alimony should have included a component for savings. The panel ruled that it should have.
Judge Rothstadt observed that the standard of review of alimony decisions, as on other Family Part issues, is very deferential. But the panel owed “no special deference to legal conclusions.”
“A spouse’s need for savings has long been recognized as a component of alimony.” Judge Rothstadt cited a number of Supreme Court and Appellate Division cases for that proposition. Those cases generally focused the need to protect the payee spouse against a change of circumstances that would result in a reduction of the payor spouse’s alimony obligation.
But the panel here found that this was not the only reason for including savings as part of alimony, “especially where regular savings have been part of the established marital lifestyle.” In an “appropriate case,” anticipating a future disaster, the need to for major purchases such as cars or appliances, and retirement needs can and should be “considered as a living expense” when determining alimony. Judge Rothstadt quoted a Colorado case for that idea. “The most ‘appropriate case’ in which to include a savings component is where the parties’ lifestyle included regular savings.” That conclusion was buttressed by the fact that the Supreme Court recognized savings as a component of alimony when it amended the Family Part Case Information Statement to include a line for monthly savings.
The husband had argued that the fact that the parties’ accounts had been equitably distributed afforded the wife enough money for savings. Judge Rothstadt did not agree. Equitable distribution is in addition to, not in place of, alimony. And “it is not equitable to require plaintiff to rely solely on the assets she received through equitable distribution to support the standard of living while defendant is not confronted with the same burden.”
The panel “recognize[d] that the majority of other jurisdictions have not extended their courts’ consideration of the savings component of of an alimony award to the extent [the panel did] today.” But this result was “equitable” and consistent with New Jersey’s alimony statute. Accordingly, the panel vacated the decision of the Family Part and remanded for further proceedings.