- 20 -
The court noted that to deny enforcement of the postremarriage
payments would deprive Mrs. Spector of benefits for which she
negotiated and for which she forwent other possible
consideration. Id. at 349, 345 A.2d at 899. Mrs. Spector argues
that the forgone consideration to which the appellate court was
referring was the property rights she surrendered as part of the
divorce agreement.
We disagree. The appellate court enforced Dr. Ehrenworth’s
obligation to make the alimony payments and held that N.J. Stat.
Ann. sec. 2A:34-25 does not preclude a husband and wife from
agreeing that the obligation to pay alimony may survive the
wife's remarriage. Id. at 347, 345 A.2d at 898. Further, the
appellate court expressly declined to characterize the payments
for tax purposes. Id. at 350, 345 A.2d at 900.
Mrs. Spector argues that the fact that N.J. Stat. Ann. sec.
2A:34-25 prohibits courts from ordering alimony after the
remarriage of the recipient suggests that she and Dr. Ehrenworth
viewed the payments as a property settlement. She also contends
that, because she received a significant amount of assets in the
division of the marital property, she would not have received
as large an award of alimony as the weekly payments to which she
and Dr. Ehrenworth agreed. Lavene v. Lavene, 162 N.J. Super.
187, 203, 392 A.2d 621 (Ch. Div. 1978); Turner v. Turner, 158
N.J. Super. 313, 325, 385 A.2d 1280 (Ch. Div. 1978); Esposito v.
Esposito, 158 N.J. Super. 285, 385 A.2d 1266 (App. Div. 1978).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011