## Facts

- Stephen H. Painter, Jr. and Joan Painter married in 1953, separated in 1967, and had three minor children in Joan’s custody when suit was filed in 1970.
- A judgment of divorce entered in 1972 on the statutory ground of living separate and apart for at least 18 consecutive months with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.
- The trial court found total assets of $230,309 for Stephen and $99,709 for Joan.
- In computing assets subject to equitable distribution, the trial court excluded (i) property owned before the marriage and (ii) property acquired during the marriage by gift or inheritance, leaving distributable assets of $82,571 (Stephen) and $58,199 (Joan).
- Stephen’s 1971 income was found to be $32,218.
- The trial court ordered Stephen to pay $12,000 annually in combined alimony and child support (with specified monthly allocations), cover specified medical expenses for Joan and the children, and pay an additional amount keyed to the difference in distributable assets.

## Issues

1. Whether the equitable-distribution provision of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 (as amended in 1971) was unconstitutional, including for vagueness or title-and-subject defects.
2. Whether property acquired during the marriage by gift or inheritance is included within “property ... acquired ... during the marriage” and thus potentially subject to equitable distribution.
3. What date ends the period for identifying “property acquired during the marriage” for distribution purposes: filing of the complaint or entry of the divorce judgment.
4. Whether the trial court’s property distribution and support orders required revision under the correct statutory interpretation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey upheld the equitable-distribution statute as constitutional and sufficiently definite to guide judicial decision-making.
- The court held that “property ... acquired ... during the marriage” includes property obtained by gift or inheritance during the marriage, subject to equitable allocation in the конкрет case.
- The court set the filing of the divorce complaint as the cut-off date for determining property eligible for equitable distribution.
- The court vacated the judgment and remanded for reconsideration of equitable distribution and alimony/support consistent with its construction of the statute.

## Legal Principles

- An equitable-distribution statute is not void for vagueness where it relies on established equitable concepts and permits courts to weigh relevant factors to reach a fair allocation.
- “Property ... acquired ... during the marriage” is construed broadly to include property obtained by purchase, gift, or inheritance during the marriage; the source of acquisition affects equitable allocation, not statutory eligibility.
- For determining the pool of distributable property, the relevant acquisition period ends upon filing of the divorce complaint, providing a clear and administrable cut-off.
- A property distribution and related support award must be reassessed when based on an erroneous exclusion of assets from the distributable estate or an incorrect temporal framework.

## Conclusion

The court sustained New Jersey’s equitable-distribution framework, interpreted marital acquisitions to include gifts and inheritances received during the marriage, adopted the complaint-filing date as the endpoint for determining distributable acquisitions, and remanded for a new property and support determination under these rules.


Painter v. Painter, 65 N.J. 196, 320 A.2d 484 (N.J. 1974)