Does Gnall Suggest That We Should Be Filing Motions To Get Stay At Home Parents Back To Work At The Beginning Of Cases?

I have previously blogged about the permanent alimony and lifestyle aspects of the Gnall case decided by the Appellate Division last week. Gnall had another interesting issue, that is, imputation of income. More specifically, the case discussed whether income should be immediately imputed to a stay at home parent.

In Gnall, the trial court imputed income to the wife of $65,000 per year, concluding that she had "done nothing" pendente lite to obtain employment. In her appeal, the wife claimed that immediately imputing this level of earnings, without allowing any period for retraining and workforce reentry, was error.

The Appellate Division affirmed the finding as to the amount of imputation of income but remanded the matter to the trial court to determine the effective date of the imputation, noting that there was nothing in the record to support a finding that the wife could immediately start earning $65,000. The discussion of this issue was fascinating (assuming one gets fascinated reading family law cases).

First, the court discussed the wife's complaint that income should have been imputed to her as a teacher, which is what she wanted to become (she actually originally told the experts that she didn't want to work), as opposed to as a computer programmer, her prior career. In rejecting this argumetn, the Appellate Division held:

Imputation must be based on earning capacity, not employment desires. Plaintiff remains free to pursue her dreams as "[a]ny party is free to retire, take a vow of poverty, write poetry or hawk roses in an airport, if he or she sees fit." Deegan v. Deegan, 254 N.J. Super. 350, 358-59 (App. Div. 1992). However, she may not shed her obligations to contribute as best she is able to her support and that of her children. Ibid.

The Appellate Division, however, rejected the trial court finding that the wife had voluntarily chosen not to become employed, noting:

We are aware of no authority mandating a dependent spouse, absent from the workforce, by agreement, for a significant period of time, to immediately prepare for and return to work pendente lite, absent notice of this expectation presented by motion or court directive. We are not suggesting able spouses do not hold a responsibility to support themselves; we are only finding there is no support in this record for the judge's conclusion resulting in the immediate imputation of $65,000 annual income.

The court also noted that, "... the issue of plaintiff's return to...