- 7 -
On April 1, 1981, Mrs. Spector filed a certification in
support of her motion to compel Dr. Ehrenworth to make the weekly
payments in which she referred to the payments as “alimony”. On
May 6, 1981, Mrs. Spector filed a second certification in which
she referred to the weekly payments as “alimony”. On
December 23, 1981, Mrs. Spector filed a third certification in
which she referred to the weekly payments as "support".
The judge who had handled the divorce case and conducted the
settlement negotiations decided the motions. He granted
Mrs. Spector's motion. Dr. Ehrenworth appealed. On October 7,
1982, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court affirmed the
lower court's ruling. Ehrenworth v. Ehrenworth, 187 N.J. Super.
342, 347, 454 A.2d 895 (App. Div. 1982). The Appellate Division
stated:
[The New Jersey statute] is intended to provide that
if the court has awarded alimony, then upon the wife's
remarriage the alimony must cease.
* * * * * * *
We see no reason in public policy why the
agreement should not be enforced. The parties
voluntarily agreed upon its terms in proceedings of
the greatest formality. If the payments were to be
treated by the parties as installments on a fixed
obligation as opposed to alimony, it cannot be doubted
that * * * [Dr. Ehrenworth] would be denied relief
since * * * [the New Jersey statute] deals only with
alimony. We do not see why the fact that for perceived
tax advantages the parties preferred to call the
payments alimony should have a bearing on the outcome
of this litigation. Enforcement of * * * [the New
Jersey statute] in the circumstances of this case would
work an unconscionable result relieving * * *
[Dr. Ehrenworth] of his freely bargained-for obligation
and depriving plaintiff of the benefit for which she
negotiated. In negotiating this agreement * * *
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011