New Jersey Family Lawyer
New Jersey Family Lawyer Vol. 37, No. 1 — August 2016 Chair’s Column And The Show Must Go On… by Timothy F. McGoughran ew Jersey family lawyers in 2016 and 2017 should be in for some interesting times, and not because I have become chair of this great section. On May 3, 2016, the N Supreme Court decided Quinn v. Quinn.1 The majority opinion was written by Judge Mary Catherine Cuff, P.J.A.D. (temporarily assigned), where the Court held, “an agreement to terminate alimony upon cohabitation entered by fully informed parties, represented by independent counsel, and without any evidence of overreaching, fraud, or coercion is enforceable.”2 The Court indicated, “Under the circumstances of the record developed at trial, we hold that the trial court was required to apply the remedy of termination, as fashioned by the parties.”3 Justice Barry Albin and Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, dissenting forcefully, noting as follows: The majority in this case has reached not the inevitable, but the inequitable result. The majority’s adherence to Konzelman has led to an unjust outcome in this case. We are not bound to follow a decision whose principles are unsound and when considered reflection counsels that we should take a different, more just course. The passage of time has not dimmed the logical force of Justice O’Hern’s dissent in Konzelman. Denying a divorced woman her right to alimony merely because she has pursued happiness and cohabits advances no legitimate interest when her economic circumstances remain unchanged. The wrong here is not made right because the anti-cohabitation clause is contained in a property settlement agreement.4 These are unusually harsh words in the dissent, showing a deeply divided Court.
[Show full text]