Term Alimony

1. As stated in Cox v. Cox, 335 N.J. Super. 465 (App. Div. 2000), the focus of limited duration alimony (a/k/a term alimony) is distinctly different from that of rehabilitative or reimbursement alimony. Limited duration alimony is not intended to facilitate the earning capacity of a dependant spouse or to make a sacrificing spouse whole, but rather to address those circumstances where an economic need for alimony is established, but the marriage was of short-term duration such that permanent alimony is not appropriate. Those circumstances stand in sharp contrast to marriages of long duration where economic need is also demonstrated. In the former instance, limited duration alimony provides an equitable and proper remedy. In the latter circumstances, permanent alimony is appropriate and an award of limited duration alimony is clearly circumscribed, both by equitable considerations and by statute.

   Limited duration alimony is neither an available option nor an appropriate remedy in all dissolution cases. In considering alimony applications under the statutory scheme, judges should bear in mind that an award of limited duration alimony must reflect the underlying policy considerations which distinguish this form of alimony from rehabilitative and reimbursement alimony. Conceptually, limited duration alimony is more closely related to permanent alimony than to rehabilitative or reimbursement alimony. The latter two types of alimony represent forms of limited spousal support for specified purposes; once the purpose is achieved, entitlement to that form of alimony ceases. Permanent and limited duration alimony, by contrast, reflect the important policy of recognizing that marriage is an adaptive economic and social partnership, and an award of either validates that principle.

   Limited duration alimony accommodates the marital partnership principle by recognizing in certain marriages that a permanent alimony order — or no alimony award at all — is an injustice, and that the law must provide sufficient flexibility to enter orders fulfilling not only the statutory directives but the fundamental purposes of alimony. This flexibility mandates an appropriate judicial analysis of the statutory factors when contemplating an award of more than reimbursement or rehabilitative alimony, the former being awarded to recognize past forbearances and the latter to meet fixed future needs.

   Limited duration alimony is to be awarded in recognition of a dependent spouse's contributions to a relatively short-term marriage that nevertheless demonstrated the attributes of a "marital partnership". In determining whether to award limited duration alimony, a trial judge must consider the same statutory factors considered in any application for permanent alimony, tempered only by the limited duration of the marriage. All other statutory factors being in equipoise, the duration of the marriage marks the defining distinction between whether permanent or limited duration alimony is warranted and awarded.




2. Law Lessons from CETIN v. CETIN (App. Div., A-2680-04T2, January 5, 2006, not approved for publication): Since the marriage of six and one-half years was one of intermediate duration, the judge may find permanent alimony unwarranted; however, the judge must consider limited duration alimony, as suggested by N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23c. “[I]n recognition of a dependent spouse’s contributions to a relatively short-term marriage,” limited duration alimony is to be awarded. Cox, supra, 335 N.J. Super. at 483. Such alimony is intended for situations where “an economic need for alimony is established, but the marriage was of short-term duration such that permanent alimony is not appropriate.” Id. at 476. The judge considers the same factors for limited duration alimony as for a permanent alimony award. Id. at 483.



3. Law Lessons from TARANTINO v. TARANTINO (App. Div., A-952-04T1, March 10, 2006, not approved for publication): Limited duration alimony recognizes a dependent spouse's contributions to a relatively short-term marriage that nevertheless reflected the concept of a marital partnership. To determine whether to award limited duration alimony, the trial judge must consider the same factors applicable to permanent alimony, adjusted only to reflect the limited duration of the marriage. The trial court must consider, and make specific findings, regarding the statutory factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23b.3. Crews, 164 N.J. at 25.



4. Law Lessons from DE SARO v. DE SARO (App. Div., A-1649-04T5, March 23, 2006, not approved for publication):
   
   "[Limited Duration Alimony] is available to a dependant spouse who made 'contributions to a relatively short-term marriage that . . . demonstrated the attributes of a 'marital partnership' and has the skills and education necessary to return to the work force." Cox v. Cox, 335 N.J. Super. 465, 483 (App. Div. 2000). LDA is intended for situations where there is "an economic need for alimony . . . but the marriage was of short-term duration such that permanent alimony is not appropriate." Id. at 476. It addresses cases generally "involving short[]-term marriages where permanent or rehabilitative alimony would be inappropriate or inapplicable but where, nonetheless, economic assistance for a limited period of time would be just." Ibid. (quoting Sponsor's Statement to Senate Bill No. 54 (1998)).
   
   A significant difference between permanent and term alimony is the length of the marriage. While "[t]here is no bright line that divides the duration of a marriage that warrants an award of permanent alimony from the duration of a marriage that is too brief." Gordon v. Rozenwald, 380 N.J. Super. 55, 75 n.4 (App. Div. 2005).
   
   In awarding LDA, like permanent alimony, the trial judge must "consider and make specific findings" under the alimony statute. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23b; Cox, 335 N.J. Super. at 483.



5. Return to General Topic Index

NOTE: If you believe that ANYTHING on this Webpage is misspelled, incomplete, inaccurate or downright wrong; or if a Link fails to link to its intended Webpage, please send me an Email, expressing your concern or opinion.

Also, please be mindful that THE INFORMATION AND SOURCES PROVIDED HEREIN MAY NOT BE ACCURATE OR COMPLETE -- YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RELYING ON THIS INFORMATION.  No warranties, express or implied, are made regarding the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information.

Also, please be aware that the information on this Webpage DOES NOT constitute LEGAL ADVICE, which advice will only be given in PRIVATE CONSULTATION, after entering into an ATTORNEY / CLIENT RELATIONSHIP, and the execution of a WRITTEN RETAINER AGREEMENT. Also, simply sending to me an email or providing information to me does NOT create an ATTORNEY / CLIENT RELATIONSHIP   -- if you wish to retain me as your attorney or mediator, you are welcome to call me at (908)486-2200, or to Email me, to schedule an appointment.

Links

Linked sites are NOT under the control of the Paul G. Kostro, A Professional Corporation or Paul G. Kostro, Esq. (the "Authors") and the Authors are NOT responsible for the content of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site.

The Authors do NOT endorse websites, companies or entities to which links are provided.

The Authors reserve the right to terminate any link at any time.

If you decide to access any of the third party sites linked to, you do so entirely AT YOUR OWN RISK.

© Paul G. Kostro, Esq. 2005