Court Opinion

ID: 9859145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 18:52:34.968322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:44.429626
License: Public Domain

*156SCHREIBER, J.,
dissenting.
The majority opinion compels the defendant as a former husband to continue to pay the plaintiff, his former wife, alimony of $110 per week despite the fact that she may not be in need of that support since she is living with another man. The trial court found that as of the date of the hearing “they [were] living together.” Ante at 150. In the absence of a showing that the alimony funds are not being used to support the new mate and that the new mate is not supporting the alimony recipient, I would terminate alimony.
The finding that the former wife is living with another man indicates that circumstances have changed since the amount of alimony had originally been fixed. Under such circumstances, it should be incumbent upon her to come forward with evidence of the extent of her continued need for alimony, if any. She has caused the change in circumstances and is in possession of the pertinent facts relating to her continued need for support. It might not be amiss to create a rebuttable presumption that alimony is no longer justifiable. See Grossman v. Grossman, 128 N.J.Super. 193 (Ch. Div.1974) (advocating and applying a rebut-table presumption in similar circumstances).
Imposition upon her of the burden of coming forward is harmonious with the legislative intent that she not be entitled to alimony upon remarriage.1 N.J.S.A. 2A:34-25. This is not to say that the plaintiff might not be entitled to a continuation of alimony in the same or a lesser amount. However, her new live-in companion and she are in a much better position to show their financial and economic situation. Placing the burden of going forward on her would not be unduly onerous. This is not visiting any punishment on her for her conduct. She may have sexual relations, State v. Saunders, 75 N.J. 200, 225 (1977) *157(Schreiber, J., concurring), or live with whomsoever she desires, but the obligation of support should not be imposed on the former husband if the reason for that obligation does not exist.
The result in this case may well be that the wife is no longer in need of the same support. The trial court made no findings with respect to whether the plaintiff was using the alimony to cover a portion of the expenses incurred by her new companion or whether he was contributing funds for her support. The trial court did conclude, however, that in the period between December 1, 1979 and mid-March 1980, either he “contributed certain sums or did not pay anything and she used the alimony to cover a part of the expenses incurred by [him].” The majority’s reversal terminates the matter in favor of the wife without any trial court findings with respect to her continued need.
I would reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand the matter to the trial court to furnish the plaintiff the opportunity to adduce evidence of her continued need.
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK and O’HERN — 5.
For reversal and remandment — Justice SCHREIBER — 1.

The majority acknowledges its “respect [for] the concerns of commentators that [the majority’s] approach to cohabitation may discourage marriage....” Ante at 155.