Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ross v. Ross

Decided: July 12, 1977.

JAMES R. ROSS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ELIZABETH ROSS, DEFENDANT



Griffin, J.s.c.

Griffin

[151 NJSuper Page 486] Should an asset acquired by one spouse prior to the filing of a complaint for divorce, but many

years after the separation, be subject to equitable distribution?

The parties were married in June 1951. They separated in early 1963. In 1970 the husband purchased a home. He alone contributed to its purchase and maintenance. A complaint for divorce based on 18 months' separation was filed in March 1975 and the divorce was granted in this case.

The statute covering equitable distribution provides in part:

[T]he court may make such award or awards to the parties * * * to effectuate an equitable distribution of the property, both real and personal, which was legally and beneficially acquired by them or either of them during the marriage. [ N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23]

The issue involved is the interpretation of the phrase "during the marriage." Three New Jersey Supreme Court cases have discussed this subject.

Painter v. Painter , 65 N.J. 196 (1974), rejects as impractical a literal interpretation which would carry the terminal point for acquisition down to the date of divorce. The case holds (at 218), "We think the better rule to be that for purposes of determining what property will be eligible for distribution the period of acquisition should be deemed to terminate the day the complaint is filed."

In the case of Chalmers v. Chalmers , 65 N.J. 186 (1974), the court mentioned its holding in Painter and went on to say (at 192), "In finding this to be the legislative intent we rejected as unworkable the concept that no property should be included that was acquired after it could be shown that there was an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage or after a cause of action for divorce had arisen."

Justice Mountain, in Smith v. Smith , 72 N.J. 350 (1977), modified the rule of Painter and Chalmers , where there was a separation agreement accompanied by an actual separation of the parties, holding:

The execution and delivery of such agreement, or its inclusion in a judgment, would appear to be incontrovertible evidence that the

marital enterprise is no longer viable. To regard the "duration of the marriage" for the purpose of equitable distribution as continuing beyond the date of such an agreement, accompanied by an actual physical separation of the parties, does not come within the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.