Norman Spector and Marcia Spector - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         
               c.   Whether the Weekly Payments and Other Property Awarded            
                    to Mrs. Spector Equaled One-Half of the Marital Estate            
               As discussed in paragraph A-3-a, Dr. Ehrenworth and                    
          Mrs. Spector used the weekly payments to achieve an acceptable              
          division of their marital assets and to provide support for Mrs.            
          Spector.  The record shows that Mrs. Spector received somewhat              
          more than one-half of the marital estate in the form of the                 
          weekly payments and other marital property awarded to her.  This            
          factor is neutral.                                                          
               d.   Whether the Weekly Payments Were Fixed in Amount and              
                    Subject to Contingencies                                          
               The payments were fixed in amount and duration.  Under                 
          New Jersey law, alimony is generally subject to review and                  
          modification on a showing of changed circumstances.  N.J. Stat.             
          Ann. sec. 2A:34-23 (1987); Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 416                 
          A.2d 45, 48 (1980).  The agreement required Dr. Ehrenworth to               
          pay Mrs. Spector $800 per week for 12 years whether or not                  
          Dr. Ehrenworth's or Mrs. Spector's financial circumstances                  
          changed.  The payments were not contingent on Mrs. Spector's                
          not remarrying, although they would cease if Mrs. Spector died.             
          See N.J. Stat. Ann. sec. 2A:34-25 (alimony stops on remarriage).            
               Mrs. Spector points out that the payments were contingent              
          only on her staying alive during the payment period.  She argues            
          that her death is not a significant contingency and that she                
          agreed that the payments would end when she died because her                






Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011