## Facts

- Brenda Mani and James J. Mani married in 1973 and had no children.
- The spouses worked together for years in James’s seasonal amusement business; after its sale, they lived largely on investment returns.
- Brenda received substantial gifts and later stock from her father, often kept solely in her name under family conditions requiring spousal waivers.
- James’s post-sale income-producing efforts were limited; the marital lifestyle was supported primarily by Brenda’s separate investment income.
- The marriage deteriorated after Brenda discovered James’s affair; she filed for divorce around 2000.
- James sought permanent alimony; Brenda opposed or sought to limit alimony and argued James could earn more, while also asserting his adultery should not increase support.

## Issues

1. Whether, and to what extent, marital fault (including adultery) is relevant to alimony entitlement or the amount of alimony under New Jersey law.
2. Whether marital fault may be considered when awarding counsel fees in a matrimonial action.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that marital fault is generally irrelevant to alimony.
- The Court recognized only two limited exceptions: (1) fault that has affected the parties’ economic life and (2) fault so egregious that continuing economic ties would offend basic notions of justice.
- Ordinary marital misconduct, including adultery, may not be used to increase or decrease the amount of alimony.
- The Court held that marital fault is irrelevant to an award of counsel fees.
- The Court rejected the intermediate appellate court’s suggestion that adultery could justify the alimony amount and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its standards.

## Legal Principles

- Alimony is an economic right arising from the marital relationship, tied to the marital standard of living and the parties’ financial circumstances, not a moral sanction.
- Marital fault may be considered in alimony only when:
  - The conduct has a direct, demonstrable economic effect (e.g., purposeful dissipation or destruction of marital assets); or
  - The conduct is so extreme and different in kind from ordinary marital misconduct that it may bear on whether alimony should be awarded at all.
- “Egregious fault,” if found, relates to alimony eligibility rather than adjusting the dollar amount.
- Counsel-fee awards in matrimonial matters turn on financial considerations (e.g., need, ability to pay, and good faith in litigation), not personal misconduct.

## Conclusion

The court limited fault’s role in financial relief after divorce, holding that adultery and other ordinary marital misconduct do not affect alimony or counsel fees, except where misconduct causes economic harm or is extraordinarily egregious such that alimony entitlement itself may be denied.


Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70, 869 A.2d 904 (N.J. 2005)