Opinion ID: 1961989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Separation with an Agreement

Text: The question remains what type of separation agreement qualifies as signaling the end of the acquisition period. We consider this issue to be resolved by our earlier decisions on the subject. As is evident in Smith and Carlsen, a written agreement to separate which includes support or property settlement provisions will fix the termination date. Carlsen, 72 N.J. at 369-371; Smith, 72 N.J. at 361-362. [3] However, when an agreement is not written, only the actual division of marital property pursuant to that agreement will be considered sufficient evidence that the marital partnership is no longer viable. See DiGiacomo, 80 N.J. at 159, 402 A. 2d 922. In many cases an oral agreement as to division of marital property will be more difficult to prove than a written agreement. Yet where the parties to a marriage have completely divided their assets, it would be grossly inequitable to include later acquired assets as part of the marital estate. The crucial element of proof  an actual distribution of assets  is easily susceptible of verification. Since a partial distribution would not necessarily demonstrate the end of the marital partnership, an agreed distribution must involve a large part of [the] marital assets, DiGiacomo v. DiGiacomo, 80 N.J. at 159. In contrast to a written agreement, an oral agreement that involves only support payments is an inherently poor indication of the end of a marriage. The possibilities of fabrication and the consequent problems of proof render it as unreliable as mere physical separation. See supra at 206-207. Without a written agreement, support payments cannot be interpreted to signal the end of the marital partnership. A writing carries a clear expression that both parties no longer consider themselves a partnership; so does an actual division of their property. However, a dependent spouse has little choice but to accept support payments volunteered by the other spouse. To characterize support payments as a sign that a marriage has dissolved would force a dependent spouse to refuse needed support to demonstrate that the separation was not final. We therefore agree with the dissent in the Appellate Division that physical separation and the payment of support does not constitute the type of `incontrovertible evidence that the marital enterprise is no longer viable,'   . 167 N.J. Super. at 270 (Michels, J.A.D., dissenting in part) (quoting Smith, 72 N.J. at 361).