D'Oro v. D'Oro
| Decision Date | 09 November 1982 |
| Citation | 187 N.J.Super. 377,454 A.2d 915 |
| Parties | Annette M. D'ORO, Plaintiff, v. Frank J. D'ORO, Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
George J. Cotz, Ramsey, for plaintiff (Weber, Muth & Weber, Ramsey, attorneys).
Rose Marie C. Schutt, Ridgewood, for defendant (Messineo & Messineo, Ridgewood, attorneys).
KRAFTE, J.J.D.R.C. (temporarily assigned).
In the ever-burgeoning field of matrimonial division of pensions, a problem, apparently for which no precedent has been found, arises in this post-judgment motion. As aptly put by Judge Consodine in In re Finkelstein, 112 N.J.Super. 534, 537, 271 A.2d 916 (Ch.Div., 1970), "However, dearth of precedent has never been a deterent to action on new combinations of facts."
This court is faced with the following question: Once a "present value" of a pension is equitably distributed, and the nonpensioner receives her share in immediate cash, and the pensioner's share is deferred, specifically "leaving all pension benefits to the employee himself," can his monthly pension benefits upon his retirement be included in an income base for purposes of re-establishment of alimony? This court answers in the negative.
Factually, a contested divorce trial was held resulting in a judgment dated February 22, 1982. The parties had been married for 37 years; defendant was 64 years of age at the time of trial and was to become 65 and intended to retire in July 1982.
Among other things, the court found through testimony at the trial that there were cash assets of some $24,491, a marital home with an equity of $140,000, and a "present value" of defendant's pension of $53,018. As to the latter, the court granted equitable distribution of one-third ($17,675.) to plaintiff, further stating:
The dictates of the Kikkert case, [Kikkert v. Kikkert, 177 N.J.Super. 471, 427 A.2d 76 (App.Div.1981), aff'd 88 N.J. 4, 438 A.2d 317 (1981) ] mandates that, where assets are available as a set-off, [the court] make such division and leave "all pension benefits to the employee himself." ... Actual distribution shall be by deducting said sum [$17,675] from defendant's share of the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence. Defendant shall, therefore, be entitled to all pension benefits, as and when payable.
It is also important to note that the parties were married 35 1/2 years and that the court found plaintiff unable to seek gainful employment. Alimony was determined by the court as follows:
By way of equitable distribution, plaintiff will receive the estimated sum of $94,470 after the sale of the marital home and distribution of the Rockwell Savings Plan. Assuming that plaintiff must expend $19,470 in establishing a residence, she will still have some $75,000. Invested conservatively at 12%, this will provide an income of $9,000 per year, $750 a month, $173 a week. Additionally, plaintiff receives $125 a month Social Security, or a projected $875 per month. Defendant now has a net of $2,064 per month. Therefore, defendant shall pay $685 per month ....
Defendant husband now moves to eliminate alimony. Plaintiff wife moves for enforcement of the final judgment. Affidavits show that defendant has in fact retired; that his present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Innes v. Innes
...of "double-dipping," inasmuch as it flowed from assets that had already been equitably distributed. He relied on D'Oro v. D'Oro, 187 N.J.Super. 377, 454 A.2d 915 (Ch.Div.1982), aff'd, 193 N.J.Super. 385, 474 A.2d 1070 (App.Div.1984), which prohibits such consideration. The Appellate Divisio......
-
Marriage of Bookout, In re
...purposes. See Stemper v. Stemper, 403 N.W.2d 405 (S.D.1987); Pelot v. Pelot, 116 Wis.2d 339, 342 N.W.2d 64 (1983); D'Oro v. D'Oro, 187 N.J.Super. 377, 454 A.2d 915 (1982). See also Innes v. Innes, 117 N.J. 496, 569 A.2d 770 (1990) (decided after adoption of statute codifying D'Oro I do not ......
-
Mayville v. Mayville
...and second, for inclusion in [the other party's] cash flow for determination of an alimony base.” D'Oro v. D'Oro, 187 N.J.Super. 377, 454 A.2d 915, 916 (Ch.Div.1982). We note, however, that some of the courts in the minority hold so because of an explicit controlling statute. See Innes, 569......
-
Staver v. Staver
...80% of his income from social security if alimony were to continue at the present rate. Plaintiff relies on D'Oro v. D'Oro, 187 N.J.Super. 377, 454 A.2d 915 (Ch.Div.1982), aff'd 193 N.J.Super. 385, 474 A.2d 1070 (App.Div.1984), as controlling. There the court considered the following questi......
-
§ 7.10 Pensions
...N.W.2d 119 (Minn. App. 1988). New Jersey: N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:34-23; Innes v. Innes, 117 N.J. 496, 569 A.2d 770 (1990); D'Oro v. D'Oro, 454 A.2d 915 (N.J. Super. 1982), aff'd 474 A.2d 1070 (N.J. App. Div. 1984). New York: Rogers v. Rogers, 98 A.D.2d 386, 470 N.Y.S.2d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 19......