- 11 -
II. Parties’ Contentions
The disputed payments were made pursuant to orders that did
not specifically allocate a portion of the amount as alimony or
as child support, but, rather, required that the money be used to
maintain Ms. Kean, the children, and the household. Respondent
and Mr. Kean argue that these payments should be treated as
alimony. Ms. Kean argues that the payments should not be treated
as alimony.
The parties agree that the disputed payments meet the
requirements of section 71(b)(1)(B). The parties agree that the
requirements of section 71(b)(1)(C) do not apply because Mr. Kean
and Ms. Kean were not legally separated under a decree of divorce
or separate maintenance when the disputed payments were made.
Ms. Kean argues that the disputed payments do not satisfy the
requirements of section 71(b)(1)(A) or (D). Respondent and Mr.
Kean argue that the disputed payments satisfy these requirements.
III. Section 71(b)(1)(A)
As to the requirements of section 71(b)(1)(A), Ms. Kean
argues that she did not receive the payments. Despite this
contention, Ms. Kean stipulated that Mr. Kean made each of the
disputed payments to her by either depositing money directly into
the joint checking account; issuing checks to her, which were
then deposited into the joint checking account; or making a
payment on her behalf with the Somerset County Probation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011