Olen v. Melia
| Decision Date | 04 May 1976 |
| Parties | Stanley OLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Terrence MELIA and Kenneth Melia, Defendants-Counterclaimants Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Bloom, Drobner & Javerbaum, Springfield, for plaintiff-appellant (Kenneth S. Javerbaum, Springfield, on the brief).
Andreas A. Boyadjis, Morristown, for defendants-counterclaimants respondents (Nicholas Saros, Newark, and Andreas A. Boyadjis, Morristown, on the brief).
Before Judges CARTON, CRAHAY and HANDLER.
In this matrimonial action defendant wife died before entry of judgment and the controversy continues between plaintiff husband and the children of the wife by another marriage. On this appeal plaintiff challenges the propriety of various rulings of the trial judge as to equitable distribution and related issues. We are not persuaded that any of plaintiff's arguments justifies reversal or modification of the judgment.
The home in which the couple resided was acquired after the marriage and was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. This is so irrespective of whether the down-payment was made from the husband's prior savings and irrespective of whether he made the mortgage payments from his income. Despite the circumstances surrounding the marriage and the wife's ultimate desertion, it cannot be said that during the period the parties lived together the wife did not contribute to the increase in value of the home, even though her contribution was not of a pecuniary nature. See Scherzer v. Scherzer, 136 N.J.Super. 397, 346 A.2d 434 (App.Div.1975), certif. den. 69 N.J. 391, 354 A.2d 319 (1976). The modest allowance of 15% Of the value of the home, determined as of the date of the complaint, does not strike us as unwarranted.
Nor are we persuaded that the trial court improperly allowed counsel fees in favor of the wife's estate or heirs. The action was a matrimonial one. Although suit for divorce would ordinarily abate with the death of the wife, the other aspects involving, as here, the disposition of marital property would not and should not abate. See Olen v. Olen, 124 N.J.Super. 373, 377, 307 A.2d 121 (App.Div.1973), which involved an earlier phase of this case, where the court remanded the matter to the trial court for entry of an amended final judgment Nunc pro tunc. Neither the letter nor the spirit of the law is violated by the allowance of counsel fees in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carr v. Carr
...370 A.2d 65 (husband who murders wife during pendency of divorce action may not object to equitable distribution); Olen v. Melia, 141 N.J.Super. 111, 357 A.2d 310 (App.Div.) (final judgment of divorce entered after one party had died prior to the entry of the final order and where trial cou......
-
Peterson v. Goldberg
...this State, the courts of other jurisdictions have repeatedly held that abatement does not necessarily follow death. In Olen v. Melia, 141 N.J.Super. 111, 357 A.2d 310 the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey held that although the wife, who was a party to a pending action......
-
Wadlow v. Wadlow
...558, 564, 398 A.2d 921 (App.Div.1979); Perkins v. Perkins, supra 159 N.J.Super. at 246, 387 A.2d 1211; Olen v. Melia, 141 N.J.Super. 111, 113, 357 A.2d 310 (App.Div.1976), certif. den. 71 N.J. 518, 366 A.2d 673 (1976); Scherzer v. Scherzer, 136 N.J.Super. 397, 401, 346 A.2d 434 (App.Div.197......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skolny
...courts, as with others whose source of support has ceased with the death of the supporting spouse. Cf. Olen v. Melia, 141 N.J.Super. 111, 357 A.2d 310 (App.Div.1976) (equitable distribution following death of one of the parties in a divorce ...