Iovino v. Iovino

• Decision Date: 12 November 1959
• Docket Number: No. A--397,A--397
• Citation: 155 A.2d 578,58 N.J.Super. 138
• Parties: Anna IOVINO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Thomas IOVINO, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 138

58 N.J.Super. 138

155 A.2d 578

Anna IOVINO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.Thomas IOVINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A--397.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued Sept. 21, 1959.

Decided Nov. 12, 1959.

Hyman Halpern, Newark, for defendant-appellant.

No appearance was made, nor any brief filed, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before Judges CONFORD, FOLEY and SCHERER.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

SCHERER, J.S.C.(temporarily assigned).

DefendantThomas Iovino appeals from an order entered by the Chancery Division on January 26, 1959, vacating a judgment Nisi dated October 8, 1958, dismissing without prejudice the divorce complaint upon which the judgment was entered, but requiring the payment of the counsel fee awarded to the plaintiff in that judgment.The notice of motion to vacate was made December 12, 1958, prior to the date when final judgment ordinarily would have been entered.R.R. 4:98--7 provides that final judgment shall be entered by the clerk, 'as of course, immediately upon the expiration of 3 months from the entry of the judgment Nisi, unless that judgment be appealed from or proceedings for review are pending, or the court, before the expiration of said period, for sufficient cause upon its own motion or upon the application of any party, whether interested or not, otherwise orders.'

This is the second suit between these parties.The plaintiff had previously instituted a maintenance action against the defendant in which she was awarded judgment on February 14, 1957.The complaint in this cause, for absolute divorce on the ground of desertion, was filed February 5, 1958.Defendant did not answer, but filed an appearance pursuant to R.R. 4:98--3, asking to be heard on the issues of custody, alimony, counsel fees and costs.The judgment Nisi, entered after the usual hearing, adjudged the defendant to be guilty of desertion and awarded custody of the two infant children to the plaintiff, directing that defendant pay plaintiff the sum of $40 per week for the support and maintenance of herself and the two children.A $300 counsel fee and costs were awarded to plaintiff's counsel.It should be noted that the award of alimony to the wife and maintenance for the children did not comply with R.R. 4:98--9, which requires that the judgment set forth separately the amounts allowed for the wife and children.

The notice of motion requested only the vacating of the judgment Nisi, not the dismissal of the complaint, and did not seek a vacating without prejudice.The defendant opposed the motion on three grounds: (1) that the judgment Nisi should not be vacated, since he had filed an appearance and contested certain issues; (2) that the vacating of the judgment Nisi should be with prejudice; and (3) that upon the vacating the provision for counsel fees contained therein should also be vacated.Only in the affidavit of the plaintiff which is annexed to the notice of motion is there any reference to a dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.The trial court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice and, while counsel fees on the motion were denied, the counsel fee awarded by the judgment Nisi was permitted to stand, in addition to which plaintiff was allowed her actual disbursements.

It is well established that the State has an interest in the marriage institution (Sobel v. Sobel, 99 N.J.Eq. 376, 378, 132 A. 603(E. & A.1926)) and that public policy favors a continuation of marriage and a reconciliation between an estranged husband and wife.Cole v. Cole, 30 N.J.Super. 433, 438, 104 A.2d 866(Ch.Div.1954);Ferrari v. Ferrari, 6 N.J.Super. 384, 387, 71 A.2d 380(App.Div.1950);Sheehan v. Sheehan, 22 N.J.Super. 326, 330, 92 A.2d 45(App.Div.1952);Grant v. Grant, 84 N.J.Eq. 81, 92 A. 791(Ch.1914).

It was in furtherance of this public policy that R.R. 4:94A was adopted, requiring reconciliation proceedings in certain counties.

The practice of allowing a successful plaintiff in a divorce suit to dismiss the suit and vacate a judgment Nisi at any time up to the entry of final judgment has had general acceptance in this State and in most other states.151 A.L.R. 849 et seq.;174 A.L.R. 519 et seq.Generally, it is held that the guilty party in a divorce suit does not have the right to compel the entry of a final judgment of divorce where, after an interlocutory judgment, the successful party fails to enter the final judgment.SeePickles v. Pickles, 70 R.I. 13, 36 A.2d 110, 151 A.L.R. 847(Sup.Ct.1944), where the wife was permitted to dismiss her suit for divorce after the entry of a judgment Nisi and before the entry of final judgment, even though there had been a counterclaim filed in the original suit.Cf.Mattson v. Mattson, 85 N.J.Eq. 454, 97 A. 40(Ch.1915).Some of the reasons which have been deemed 'sufficient cause' for vacating a judgment Nisi are collected in 12 New Jersey Practice (Herr, Marriage, Divorce and Separation), sec. 1510, pp. 596 et seq.

As to defendant's first point of appeal, we find no sound basis for making the right of the successful spouse to discontinue the action depend upon whether defendant has filed an appearance or answered.The Ferraricase, supra, relied upon by defendant for that position, does not sustain it.That decision, however, does support the general right of the successful spouse after judgment Nisi to have the action abated if a timely application is made.

We do, however, agree with defendant that the dismissal should be with prejudice to the right to institute another suit in the future on the same cause of action.Otherwise, plaintiff could...