Davis v. Davis
| Decision Date | 31 July 1981 |
| Citation | 182 N.J.Super. 397,442 A.2d 208 |
| Parties | William C. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. Donna G. DAVIS, Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Saverio R. Principato, Camden, for plaintiff.
Ruth Rabstein, Trenton, for defendant (Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman, Trenton, attys).
In Tevis v. Tevis, 79 N.J. 422, 400 A.2d 1189 (1978), the Supreme Court noted in dictum that a wife's claim for monetary compensation against her husband, and his contingent liability therefore, is a relevant circumstance affecting the parties financial status in the context of a matrimonial proceeding and should be asserted as part of that action under the single controversy doctrine. In the present case, the wife asserts a tort claim and seeks a jury trial. The dispute concerns her entitlement to a jury trial.
The question of whether a jury trial is mandated is of academic interest and in light of the substantial existing authority which needs to be analyzed could justify a lengthy opinion. However, recently a subcommittee of the Supreme Court Committee on Matrimonial Litigation reviewed this very issue in great detail and produced a report which I have examined in depth and made available to counsel. The Supreme Court Committee as a whole studied the report and made the following comments and recommendations:
After an extensive review of cases, the Committee focused on the New Jersey rule that the inherent jurisdictional power of an equity court permits it to dispose of legal issues which are incidental and ancillary to the main dispute without the necessity of providing a jury trial. See Mantell v. International Plastic Harmonica Corp., 141 N.J.Eq. 379 (E. & A. 1947); Steiner v. Steiner (Stein), 2 N.J. 367 (66 A.2d 719) (1949); Fleischer v. James Drug Stores, 1 N.J. 138 (62 A.2d 383) (1948); Beekwilder v. Beekwilder, 29 N.J.Super. 351, 358 (102 A.2d 642) (App.Div.1953). Since the marital tort damage claim is so closely related to the subject matter of equitable distribution, it passes the test of "incidental and ancillary." Thus, it appears not to require a jury trial.
Recommendations:
... As a matter of judicial administration, no jury trial for a marital tort should be provided in an action for divorce.... (Supreme Court Committee on Matrimonial Litigation, Phase Two Final Report, June 10, 1981, at 78-79).
Of course, the Final Report has not yet been implemented, nor is it certain in what manner the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brennan v. Orban
...of case law existed on the application of the ancillary jurisdiction doctrine to the context of marital torts. Davis v. Davis, 182 N.J.Super. 397, 442 A.2d 208 (Ch.Div.1981), held that a tort claim is ancillary to a divorce action, and thus denied plaintiff's request for a jury trial. In co......
-
Giovine v. Giovine
...246, 649 A.2d 630 (Ch.Div.1994). Defendant contends that the motion judge's ruling should be affirmed, citing Davis v. Davis, 182 N.J.Super. 397, 442 A.2d 208 (Ch.Div.1981). The Seventh Amendment of the Federal Constitution, which provides the right to a trial by jury in a civil case, is no......
-
Tweedley v. Tweedley
...allegation of negligence and/or intentional tort committed by one spouse against the other, it has been held in Davis v. Davis, 182 N.J.Super. 397, 442 A.2d 208 (Ch.Div.1982), that a jury trial is not required for a marital tort claim. The trial court in Davis relied on a report of the Supr......
-
Brown v. Brown
...as to how a marital tort claim joined with a traditional divorce action should be tried. See, e.g., Davis v. Davis, 182 N.J.Super. 397, 399, 442 A.2d 208 (Ch.Div.1981) (question of whether the tort claim should ordinarily be disposed of prior to, during or upon completion of the divorce hea......