The NJ State Bar Association opposes A-2668 (Mosquera) because the alimony statute already gives discretion to judges to consider domestic violence in both awarding alimony or an outright prohibition of alimony.
New Jersey passed a comprehensive reform of its alimony statutes in 2014. The NJSBA participated in those discussions. The notion of prohibiting alimony payments to a person who has committed certain enumerated crimes has been addressed in N.J.S. 2A:34-23(i), which prohibits payments of alimony for persons who are convicted of murder, manslaughter, criminal homicide, aggravated assault in certain circumstances, or substantially similar offenses in another jurisdiction if the crime resulted in death or serious bodily injury to a family member of a divorcing party and the crime was committed after the marriage or civil union. In addition to these crimes, a court has discretion to consider a prohibition on alimony for persons convicted of an attempt or conspiracy to commit murder if the ostensible payor was the intended victim. Finally, the court may consider denying alimony “for other bad acts.” The courts have discretion to consider these factors on a case by case basis.
Furthermore, with regard to the alimony award, should it be ordered, N.J.S. 2A:34-23(b) sets forth the factors that the court “shall consider” which are not limited to the 14 enumerated factors therein, but also anything else the court deems necessary. In fact, the 14th factor that the court may consider is “any other factors which the court may deem relevant.”
Under the current language, an alimony obligor could be compelled to accuse an oblige of alimony, weaponizing the statute for the obligor’s own purpose to terminate alimony. As such, this current language could create unintended consequences for the recipient of alimony. Alimony is neither a penalty, nor a reward, rather it is an attempt to equalize assets from a marriage. The Supreme Court has decided that marital fault is irrelevant to alimony except in two narrow instances – cases in which the fault has affected the parties’ economic life and cases in which the fault so violates societal norms that continuing the economic bonds between the parties would confound notions of simple justice. Mani v. Mani, 187 N.J. 70 (2005).
The Association looks forward to working with the sponsors to further strengthen the law with regard to these types of issues. As currently drafted, however, the Association does not support the bill and urges you to vote no.