## Facts

- The parties married in 1977, had one child (born 1979), and separated in 1996 after an approximately 22-year marriage.
- The husband worked throughout the marriage as a crane operator, earning about $120,000 gross annually with substantial overtime; his net monthly income was approximately $7,800.
- The wife was primarily a homemaker and the child’s primary caretaker, later working part-time jobs that generally produced about $13,000–$14,000 annually.
- The wife pursued higher education during the marriage: an undergraduate degree (1995) and a law degree (1998), incurring roughly $100,000 in educational debt.
- At trial, the wife was in a one-year judicial clerkship earning about $30,000 annually and had not yet passed the bar examination.
- The marital standard of living was described as comfortable, largely supported by the husband’s earnings.

## Issues

1. Whether limited duration alimony was appropriate following a 22-year marriage with substantial income disparity and long-term economic dependence by the wife.
2. How the 1999 amendment to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 adding limited duration alimony should be applied, including whether it may substitute for permanent alimony in long-term marriages.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the Family Part’s award of limited duration alimony ($200 per week for five years).
- The court held that limited duration alimony was inappropriate and inconsistent with the statutory criteria given the length of the marriage and the wife’s economic dependence.
- The court remanded for determination and entry of an award of permanent alimony consistent with N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 factors.

## Legal Principles

- Limited duration alimony under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 is generally intended for shorter-term marriages where support is fairly temporary; it is not a substitute for permanent alimony in long-term marriages that otherwise meet permanent-alimony criteria.
- In assessing alimony, courts must apply statutory factors, including length of marriage, marital standard of living, parties’ earning capacities and employability, and the supported spouse’s dependence and contributions during the marriage.
- A supported spouse’s recent educational attainment and possible future earning capacity do not, by themselves, eliminate the need for permanent alimony when decades of dependence and substantial present income disparity remain.
- Alimony determinations must reasonably account for the marital standard of living and the supported spouse’s realistic ability to maintain a reasonably comparable lifestyle after divorce.

## Conclusion

The court held that a five-year limited duration alimony award could not be justified on the facts of a 22-year marriage marked by significant income disparity and long-term dependence, and it remanded for an award of permanent alimony under the statutory factors.


Cox v. Cox, 762 A.2d 1040 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000)