TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wilson v. Wilson

Wilson v. Wilson, 240 A.2d 188 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 27, 1968
Judges
Consodine
Citations
240 A.2d 18899 N.J. Super. 427

Opinion

99 N.J. Super. 427 (1968) 240 A.2d 188

BEATRICE WILSON, PLAINTIFF,

v.

WILLIE WILSON, DEFENDANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.

Decided February 27, 1968.

*428 Mr. Benjamin D. Braelow for plaintiff.

Mr. Bernard A. Kuttner for defendant.

CONSODINE, J.C.C. (temporarily assigned).

Plaintiff and defendant reconciled before trial. A pendente lite order had allowed counsel fee. Plaintiff moves to dismiss the complaint and to preserve the uncollected counsel fee.

The theory of allowing a counsel fee pendente lite is to enable a wife to prepare her case for trial if her demonstrated need is shown. It is an incident of alimony and awarded as such to the wife. Shaffer v. Shaffer, 129 N.J. Eq. 42 ( E. & A. 1941); Wheeler v. Wheeler, 48 N.J. Super. 184 ( App. Div. 1957).

Under our decisional law, public policy ordains that the marriage status be maintained; that it is the duty of counsel as officers of the court to encourage settlement of actions disruptive of the marital status even at the cost of legal fees to counsel, and that reconciliation of the parties abrogates the cause of action as a legal proceeding. Cole v. Cole, 30 N.J. Super. 433 ( Chancery Div. 1954); Shaffer v. Shaffer, supra , and Kuntz v. Kuntz, 80 N.J. Eq. 429 ( Ch. 1912).

However, our case law is barren of decision on the preservation of an uncollected counsel fee under a pendente lite order where a reconciliation occurs.

*429 Stated in Kuntz , and inherent in Cole by quotation, is the mandate that neither party nor the court may, after reconciliation, take an adverse step in the cause.

The pendente lite order dies in all regards when a judgment nisi is entered unless there is a specific reservation. Lief v. Lief, 14 N.J. Misc. 27 ( Ch. 1935), affirmed 117 N.J. Eq. 483 ( E. & A. 1935). In a judgment of dismissal predicated on a reconciliation there can be no reservation because such would be an adverse order. Cole v. Cole, supra . It would be adverse in that it would subject defendant, among other things, to a contempt citation and to execution — both the progeny of an adverse order.

The provision in the proffered judgment of dismissal will be deleted.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1972: 11979: 11985: 11989: 119722026peak 1972 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kuloszewski v. Kuloszewski562 A.2d 821 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989)
  2. Silva v. Silva404 A.2d 829 (R.I. 1979)
  3. Weiner v. Weiner290 A.2d 307 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1972)
  4. Bauza v. Bauza493 A.2d 609 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985)

Most recent

  1. Kuloszewski v. Kuloszewski562 A.2d 821 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989)
  2. Bauza v. Bauza493 A.2d 609 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985)
  3. Silva v. Silva404 A.2d 829 (R.I. 1979)
  4. Weiner v. Weiner290 A.2d 307 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1972)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Cole v. Cole, 104 A.2d 866 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1954) 8
Kuntz v. Kuntz, 83 A. 787 (N.J. Ct. of Ch. 1912) 16
Shaffer v. Shaffer, 17 A.2d 780 (N.J. 1941) 10
Lief v. Lief, 178 A. 762 (N.J. Ct. of Ch. 1935) 12
Wheeler v. Wheeler, 137 A.2d 84 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1957) 10
Lief v. Lief, 176 A. 318 (N.J. 1935) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list