Gnall v. Gnall

• Decision Date: 29 July 2015
• Docket Number: A-52 September Term 2013, 073321
• Citation: 222 N.J. 414,119 A.3d 891
• Parties: Elizabeth GNALL, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. James GNALL, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

222 N.J. 414

119 A.3d 891

Elizabeth GNALL, Plaintiff–Respondent

v.James GNALL, Defendant–Appellant.

A-52 September Term 2013, 073321

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Nov. 12, 2014.

Decided July 29, 2015.

Donald P. Jacobs argued the cause for appellant (Budd Larner, attorneys; Barry L. Baime, Short Hills, of counsel).

Dale Elizabeth Console, Kingston, argued the cause for respondent.

Paris P. Eliades, President, argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey State Bar Association (Mr. Eliades, Brian M. Schwartz, Livingston, Ulrichsen Rosen & Freed, and Szaferman, Lakind Blumstein & Blader, attorneys; Ralph J. Lamparello, Secaucus, of counsel; Mr. Lamparello, Mr. Schwartz, Derek M. Freed, Pennington, and Brian G. Paul, Lawrenceville, on the brief).

Sheryl J. Seiden, Summit, argued the cause for amicus curiae The New Jersey Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (Ceconi & Cheifetz, Einhorn Harris Ascher Barbarito & Frost, Adinolfi & Goldstein, and Fox Rothschild, attorneys; Cary B. Cheifetz, President, of counsel; Ms. Seiden, Mr. Cheifetz, Bonnie C. Frost, Denville, Ronald G. Lieberman, Haddonfield, and Eric S. Solotoff, Roseland, on the brief).

John E. Finnerty, Jr., argued the cause for amicus curiae Matrimonial Lawyers Alliance (Finnerty Canda & Drisgula, Laufer, Dalena, Cadicina, Jensen & Boyd, and Snyder & Sarno, attorneys; Mr. Finnerty, Laurence J. Cutler, Morristown, and John J. Trombadore, on the brief).

Opinion

Justice FERNANDEZ–VINA delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this appeal, the Court examines a trial court's award of limited duration alimony and determines whether it was appropriate for the Appellate Division to reverse and remand for an award of permanent alimony, when, in doing so, it created a bright-line rule regarding permanent alimony awards.

This case stems from a divorce, that ended an almost fifteen-year marriage. Litigation proceedings focused on the amount and type of spousal support plaintiff Elizabeth Gnall would receive from defendant James Gnall. James was the sole wage earner of the family, making over $1,000,000.00 annually, while Elizabeth stayed home to raise their three children.

The trial judge considered the thirteen statutorily defined factors regarding alimony, N.J.S.A. 2A:34–23(b), and made specific findings of fact relating to each factor. The judge found, among other considerations, that permanent alimony was not appropriate due to the relatively young age of the parties, their educational levels, and the duration of the marriage. The judge determined that the marriage “certainly was not short-term, but neither [was it] a twenty-five to thirty-year marriage.” Moreover, the judge determined that “the parties were not married long enough” for James to be held responsible for Elizabeth's ability to maintain their marital lifestyle. Therefore, the trial court awarded Elizabeth limited duration alimony, in the amount of $18,000 per month, for a period of eleven years.

Elizabeth appealed the award, arguing that she was entitled to permanent alimony due to the length of the marriage, as well as her diminished employability. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded the case for an award of permanent alimony, reasoning that a fifteen-year marriage is “not short-term,” therefore precluding “consideration of an award of limited duration alimony.” Gnall v. Gnall, 432 N.J.Super. 129, 74 A. 3d 58 (App.Div.2013).

James appealed to this Court, arguing that the Appellate Division erred in reversing the trial court's decision and improperly created a bright-line rule regarding the length of marriage in an alimony case.

For the reasons that follow, we reverse the Appellate Division's judgment and remand to the trial court for new findings of fact and a new determination of an alimony award. We find that the Appellate Division effectively created a bright-line rule that fifteen-year marriages require permanent alimony awards which is contrary to the legislative intent underlying N.J.S.A. 2A:34–23.

I.

James and Elizabeth Gnall met in 1985 while they were both pursuing bachelor's degrees at the State University of New York in Buffalo. The couple was engaged eight years later, and married on June 5, 1993. The couple began to experience marital differences in October 2007, and on March 10, 2008, Elizabeth filed a complaint for divorce.

At the time of their marriage, Elizabeth had obtained a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and a master's degree in computer science. Initially, Elizabeth worked as a computer programmer on the foreign exchange sales desk at Goldman Sachs in New York City. Following that job, Elizabeth worked in a similar position at Banker's Trust through 1999.

James obtained an accounting degree in 1989, and then earned his Certified Public Accountant license. In June 2003, he obtained a job at Deutsche Bank, where he is currently employed as Chief Financial Officer of the bank's Finance Division in America.

After the birth of their first child, the Gnalls hired a nanny, and Elizabeth continued to work full-time. However, in 1999, the parties decided it would be best if Elizabeth stopped working in order to remain at home to care for the children full-time.

James and Elizabeth have three children, who, at the time the judgment of divorce was entered, were twelve, eleven, and eight years old. Pursuant to their custody agreement, Elizabeth is the primary caretaker of the children. James has parenting time every other weekend, and sees the children occasionally on Wednesday nights for dinner.

After 1999, James was the sole wage earner. James's total compensation was $751,000 in 2005, $1,001,000 in 2006, $1,075,000 in 2007, and $1,800,000 in 2008. The parties owned several vehicles throughout the course of their marriage, including a 1998 Nissan Maxima and a 2007 Cadillac Escalade. James and Elizabeth frequently vacationed, both with and without their children. Those vacations included trips to Disneyworld and renting oceanfront mansions in North Carolina.

In 2006, Elizabeth faced serious health issues and underwent brain surgery. She has since been able to resume a normal life with only some minor facial paralysis.

A.

The trial took place over eighteen non-consecutive days beginning on April 8, 2009, and concluding on May 19, 2010. Both James and Elizabeth testified. Lifestyle expert Rufino Fernandez, Esq., testified on Elizabeth's behalf about the economic valuation of assets and the marital standard of living. Fernandez analyzed the expenses and assets of the parties from 2004 through 2007 and authored a report, which was admitted into evidence. Fernandez testified that with the three children, Elizabeth would need $24,252 per month to maintain the marital lifestyle. However, on cross-examination, Fernandez admitted that this evaluation of the marital lifestyle was based on the whole family, not just Elizabeth and the three children. Adjusting for James's absence, the ordinary expenses for the family should be $18,578.

Each party also presented an expert witness to testify about Elizabeth's future employability. Dr. Charles Kincaid testified on behalf of Elizabeth, and Dr. David Stein testified on behalf of James. Both experts concluded that Elizabeth would be most successful pursuing a career in the computer field. Each expert however testified to a different potential starting salary.

Dr. Stein opined that Elizabeth could obtain an entry-level position earning between $58,000 and $69,000. According to Dr. Stein, Elizabeth would need only eight to twelve weeks to update her skills due to both her mathematics background and her experience as a software engineer. Finally, Dr. Stein opined that if Elizabeth was motivated to work, her salary would rapidly increase to the national average of other computer programmers, making on average $80,000 to $94,000 annually, up to a maximum of $120,000.

Dr. Kincaid testified that Elizabeth would be successful as a software engineer or a computer systems analyst. However, Dr. Kincaid concluded that Elizabeth would need at least one to two years of retraining before being able to obtain any job in the computer field, because she had been out of the field for some time, and would need to relearn software languages. Dr. Kincaid then opined that after retraining, Elizabeth would be able to obtain a job making between $50,623 and $56,765. Both experts testified that Elizabeth indicated she wanted to focus on her children instead of going back to work immediately.

Elizabeth sought employment as a math teacher following the divorce. She began to take online courses to obtain her teaching license in New Jersey, reasoning that the online program gave her flexibility to take care of her children. Elizabeth stated that the teaching position would allow her to have a similar schedule to her children so she could continue to care for them.

B.

The trial court, in a written opinion addressed six issues: (1) alimony; (2) custody and parenting time; (3) child support; (4) insurance coverage; (5) distribution of assets; and (6) counsel fees. This appeal centers only on the issue of alimony. We do not comment on the trial court's findings regarding the other five issues.

In determining the alimony award, the court first reviewed the general summary of the parties' marriage. The court then addressed each of the thirteen factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34–23(b). The trial court found that although the marriage lasted fifteen years, the case was not a permanent alimony case, but rather one requiring limited duration alimony. The court reasoned that the parties were relatively young with at least twenty-three career years before them, both were well educated, in good health, and were either employed or employable at good salaries that could support excellent lifestyles for themselves and their children.

The trial court determined that the marriage “certainly was not short-term, but neither [was it] a twenty-five to thirty-year marriage.”

Moreover, the court...