Hi, Eric...
Unfortunately, I don't have anything encouraging to say.
When I started out in this practice, you'd be hard-pressed to find a guy's PL motion that didn't include a complaint that his wife "raided their accounts" (usually to cover their attorney's fees). Now, it's rather acceptable to have either side withdraw joint funds to pay for their litigation. Prospective grants of adequate attorneys fees and costs are heartbreakers, IMO.
There used to be the thought that PL awards should try to duplicate or approximate the status quo, also idiotic, when you think about it, and never supported by the law. The correct PL standard has always been the 34-23 "fit, reasonable and just measure."
Today, more and more jurists are adopting the "share-the-pain" perspective, which not only encourages settlement (by not giving the one-down income status party carte blanche to run up the bill at the earner's expense, and by discouraging frivolous, imprudent PL spending by the supported party). I am an advocate of this thing -- believe it or not -- whomever I represent.
Side comment: Although Jacobitti does not permit a PL determination that PL support should count against a term support case, you can bring it up at the end. But in an obviously permanent case, that doesn't really matter.
IMO, public policy lends itself more readily to getting supported spouses acclimated to the necessity of tightening their budgets before the divorce becomes final. I know that this is a counterargument to your request, but I hope that it is helpful nonetheless. Cheers!
-------------------------------------------
Curtis Romanowski Esq.
Senior Attorney - Proprietor
Brielle NJ
(732)603-8585
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 07-10-2013 14:59
From: Eric Hannum
Subject: P/L Support with pending home sale
Hello everyone!
New client (W) has not worked in the past seven years at the direction of her husband. The parties are currently residing in the marital residence but the home is closing mid August. I am currently waiting on the payoff numbers to see what her share of the sale is going to be but do not believe that she should be required to independently support herself from the proceeds of the home since the marriage was long term (27 years) and she was required to remain unemployed. Seems inequitable and counter intuitive to have her support herself from the only major asset when the status quo was completely opposite. Wanted to also see what anyone thought about getting counsel fees from the Husband. Husband earns nearly 80k and should have to contribute. These expenses should not have to be solely borne by the Wife since divorce expenses could severely diminish her share of the home's proceeds. Any suggestions. Do not really want to file a P/L and was hoping to have some persuasive case law to provide adversary. Thanks in advance.
Eric B. Hannum, Esq.
Lansing and Hannum, LLC
2095 West County Line Road, Unit 4
Jackson, New Jersey 08527
P - 732.370.9596
F - 732.370.8153
-------------------------------------------
Eric Hannum Esq.
Jackson NJ
(732)370-9596
-------------------------------------------