Turner v. Turner

• Decision Date: 06 April 1978
• Citation: 385 A.2d 1280,158 N.J.Super. 313
• Parties: , 97 A.L.R.3d 730 Sally G. TURNER, Plaintiff, v. John D. TURNER, Defendant.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 313

158 N.J.Super. 313

385 A.2d 1280, 97 A.L.R.3d 730

Sally G. TURNER, Plaintiff, v.John D. TURNER, Defendant.

Superior Court of New Jersey,Chancery Division.

April 6, 1978.

Daniel G. Covine, Union, for plaintiff.

Greenberg & Feiner, West New York, for defendant(Robert Greenberg, West New York, appearing).

IMBRIANI, J. C. C.

Is rehabilitative alimony available as a technique to resolve matrimonial disputes?Our statute is silent.

Inherent in such a determination are the questions (1) does a divorced woman (albeit on some occasions we will be dealing with a man) have a duty and obligation to seek suitable employment to maintain herself in the style of living to which she became accustomed during the marriage, and (2) may a court take cognizance of and terminate alimony on a predetermined date on the basis of reasonably foreseeable future events?

Rehabilitative alimony may be defined as alimony payable for a short, but specific and terminable period of time, which will cease when the recipient is, in the exercise of reasonable efforts, in a position of self-support.

Its purposes are multifold.It will direct a wife to seek and develop within a precise time period skills necessary to obtain suitable employment.It will provide the husband with some certainty of the nature and extent of his obligation to his former wife.It will permit a court to consider reasonably foreseeable future events involving the parties and make a present determination of when alimony shall cease, which hopefully will avoid further recourse to our courts.Assuredly this will not always occur.But with sufficient information, finality should occur in the vast majority of cases.

A marriage has been destroyed and the court is called upon to play a role in the future lives of these litigants.What should that role be?As to alimony, it has historically been limited to an analysis of past and present facts in order to render a contemporary award of permanent alimony, which is made without any time limitation.Future events are ignored.The court does not anticipate what will or should occur in the future and make anticipatory decisions based thereon.We hope that the recipient will attain self-sufficiency.But we do not exert judicial might to encourage that end.Is such a traditional approach in awarding alimony in the best interest of the litigants?

None would dispute that the court should create an environment which will assist both parties in seeking and pursuing an independent path in life.Alimony, to the man, if unnecessary and a burden, will be an impediment; to the woman, if it causes her to live a life of physical and mental indolence, it will also be an impediment.

Our statute does not mandate alimony.It provides that a "court may award alimony to either party."N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(emphasis supplied).In the past alimony has been liberally granted and without time limitation, but terminable upon death of either or remarriage of the recipient.(Many voluntary agreements also terminate alimony when a former wife cohabits with an unrelated male.)

This court has previously addressed itself to some of the reasons for granting alimony, Lynn v. Lynn, 153 N.J.Super. 377, 379 A.2d 1046(Ch.Div.1977), and noted (at 382, 379 A.2d at 1048) that while "women were formerly excluded from the employment market then accepted on a limited basis, they are now widely accepted by industry."What began as an elitist movement for "women's liberation" only a decade ago, now appears to have taken root as a profound and deep social change.Indeed, today there are many women who have considerable skills and are able to command salaries far in excess of what many men earn.It is imperative that courts recognize that society has changed.

Alimony should not, as one court said, permit "a wife capable of work to sit in idleness", Guindon v. Guindon, 256 N.W.2d 894, 898(S.D.1977).Another, "they(women) are no longer per se entitled to a perpetual state of assured income or, as some would characterize it, assured indolence."Grinold v. Grinold, 32 Conn.Sup. 225, 348 A.2d 32, 33(Sup.Ct.1975).Of course, it will be for the court to sift all of the facts of each case to determine whether such concerns are present.

Divorce was once a badge of shame and dishonor.Even with a disastrous marriage, a wedded pair considered it unthinkable to seek a divorce.

But today our courts are deluged with an avalanche of divorce suits.It is said that out of every 1.8 marriages in New Jersey today, one ends in divorce.As a result, the average matrimonial litigant has undergone transmutation.In the past we dealt with men of means who had the ability to maintain two households.Now we deal with the store clerk, the assembly line operator, the building custodian and a host of other blue collar workers.Unlike litigants of the past, these men cannot maintain one household, much less two, in the same style to which they and their former wives were accustomed.In this milieu should a divorced woman be required, as a matter of law, to put her skills to use, and if she has none, to develop appropriate skills, if possible, to acquire a job?

In the past our attention was riveted upon the needs of the rejected wife.This was because most men in the matrimonial courts had the ability to maintain two households.But today our primary attention is addressed to what the man can afford to pay.The solution often becomes complicated because it is not uncommon for many men to remarry and raise new families.

The law should provide both parties with the opportunity to make a new life on this earth.Neither should be shackled by the unnecessary burdens of an unhappy marriage.This is not to suggest that women of no skills, or those who suffer a debilitating infirmity, or who are of advanced age (whatever that may be) should be denied alimony for as long as needed.But such women are the exception, not the rule.

If we are to encourage a woman to seek employment, what better way is there than to direct that alimony will be rehabilitative in nature and will cease on some predetermined date?A permanent award of alimony in futuro with the hope that a woman will seek employment has not and will not work.

Some ask why impose a time limitation?Is it not sufficient to permit a man to petition the court for modification of alimony when there is a change of circumstances?Such an inquiry misconceives the problem.What is needed is a system which will encourage a woman to develop skills and seek employment not one that will address a situation when and if it should arise.The court must design a blueprint for the future which will have "teeth" to compel a recipient of alimony to obtain employment.

Our cases are replete with language that a divorced woman is entitled to be maintained in the style of life to which she became accustomed during coverture.Yet we all know that in the vast majority of caseswe hear today that is not possible.Where the parties were required to spend during coverture practically all of their income, with little or no savings, to maintain a certain living style, it takes no great insight to appreciate that following the divorce neither will have access to the same amount of funds and both will have to scale down their style of living.

This is not unique to divorced couples.Even where we have a happy marriage, when the man dies his widow must fend for herself on the reduced income of a pension; for some there is no pension.To live even close to her previous style of life, the widow must seek employment.

We know that when a woman has maintained the household for many years, while caring for the family, she has been deprived of the opportunity to acquire marketable skills, and has lost whatever such skills she once possessed.During this time her husband has developed and improved his employment skills.Under these circumstances, it would be inequitable to thrust a woman into the employment market without first ascertaining whether she has the potentiality to obtain suitable employment and, if so, to afford her sufficient time to acquire employment skills.If the court finds that such a potentiality exists, it can determine the time a woman would need to acquire such skills and award her rehabilitative alimony during that time.It may even direct that marital assets subject to equitable distribution shall be first used to pay educational costs she may need to develop or upgrade her skills.

Such a program affords multiple advantages to the woman.She will receive financial assurances within an appropriate period to plan her future with a minimum of financial concern, but nonetheless with the foreknowledge that alimony will cease on a predetermined date.She can look forward to pursuing a career of her own which will yield valuable emotional and psychological dividends.She can enjoy the self-fulfillment and rewards of entry into the employment market a goal of the modern day women's movement.

Rehabilitative alimony, since awarded for a brief period of time, may well be for a sum greater than would have been awarded as permanent alimony.Further, the allowance of rehabilitative alimony does not preclude an allowance of permanent alimony where the woman's ability to earn is less than her needs that will be necessary to maintain her same style of living.Where appropriate, both can be awarded.For instance, if a woman requires $500 a week to maintain her style of living, and the court determines that with a two-year training period she could earn $100 a week, there should be nothing to preclude an award of $400 a week permanent alimony and $100 a week rehabilitative alimony that would cease in two years.

The advantage to the man is evident.He can now make meaningful plans for his own personal and financial future.In the past a woman could remarry without being inhibited by the burdens of an earlier marriage.But this path was not available...