Blog Posts


NJ Supreme Court Imposes Constructive Trust Against Ex-Husband’s $2.25 Million Deferred Compensation


Constructive Trust Equitable Distribution NJ

Constructive Trust Equitable Distribution NJ

The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously imposed a constructive trust over the ex-husband’s $2.25 million deferred compensation paid by his employer following the sale of the company; the sale and distribution of the deferred compensation occurred within three months of their final judgment of divorce and property settlement agreement. Thieme v. Thieme, A-51-15 (December 12, 2016).

The case is significant because it demonstrates the Supreme Court’s willingness to apply common law equitable remedies in unique situations where New Jersey’s marital equitable distribution laws create an unfair division of assets.

The New Jersey Supreme Court commented about the unique circumstances this case presented. Thus, it’s important to provide some detail of the facts. The parties cohabited for 8 years before getting married shortly after having a daughter out of wedlock. Throughout their cohabitation, the husband (“Michael”) worked for a start-up biotechnology consulting company known as IBG. He worked substantial hours and traveled extensively, while his girlfriend (“Bernice”) gave up on pursuing a career to stay at home and care for their daughter.  Although Michael held no ownership interest in IBG, its two principals made a written commitment to compensate him in the future in recognition of his substantial contributions to the company’s success.  The document did not specify the amount that would be paid to Michael, however. Rather, the amount would be determined at a later date and the compensation could come in several forms; i.e., equity interest in IBG or a newly formed venture, or “salary or other tangible method of compensation.”

The trial record revealed that Michael and Bernice made an abundance of financial decisions in anticipation of his one day receiving a substantial future payout from his employment with IBG. At one point during their cohabitation, Bernice agreed to relocate to Virginia to accommodate Michael’s job requirements. During their cohabitation and marriage, Bernice performed the household chores, made minor repairs to their home, paid bills, and managed their rental properties. In addition, Bernice claimed that she took an active role in attending social events connected with Michael’s job at IBG.

Shortly before getting married, Michael sent Bernice an email acknowledging her career sacrifices to benefit his career and promised to support her “fully in recognition of this sacrifice.” Despite this written affirmation, they continued bickering and exchanging volatile emails. At one point Bernice threatened to move to Mississippi with their daughter.  Notwithstanding, they married.

The marriage lasted only 14 months, however. Their conflict reached a critical point when Bernice sent several inflammatory emails about Michael to IBG’s owners and employees. Bernice represented that she possessed a video displaying an altercation between her and Michael that occurred in the presence of their daughter, made disparaging remarks about IBG’s owners, and demanded that IBG pay her substantial money she insisted was owed to her. Michael then proceeded to file for divorce.

With assistance from their divorce attorneys the parties negotiated a division of the marital assets and resolved alimony, support and custody. During these negotiations Bernice and Michael exchanged emails about the prospect of IBG paying Michael deferred compensation. Michael advised Bernice that he did not “expect to get any large lump-sum bonuses,” but that “if some magical $50K bonus appeared, then I’d wind up clearing $30K, and we can make some arrangement – e.g. split it 50/50?”

Read more.

What This Case Represents

This decision demonstrates that even absent a wrongful act the Court will not hesitate to impose a constructive trust as a remedy to prevent an unjust enrichment. The Court did express, however, that this case presented “extraordinary circumstances.”  

The impact of this decision to future marital dissolution proceedings and other cases obviously cannot be predicted, except to say that it no longer appears necessary for a court to find a wrongful act as a condition precedent to imposing a constructive trust. 


Admitted to NJ Bar in 1990, NY Bar in 1991. Former Judicial Law Clerk to Honorable Peter Ciolino, Assignment Judge, Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. Member & Barrister: Daniel J. Moore Bankruptcy Inn of Court Member & Barrister: Morris Pashman Inn of Court Member: Bergen County Bar Association NJ Superlawyer - 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 Nominated for inclusion in Best Lawyers of America Member: Litigation Counsel of America, Trial Lawyer Honorary Society
Enjoy Our Posts ? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter or subscribe to our RSS Feed.

Contact Information

Address
411 Hackensack Avenue
Hackensack, NJ 07601

Phone Number
(201) 870-4938


icono

Awards: Best Law Firms Metro Region New Jersey • New Jersey Super Lawyers • Best Lawyers in America • 201 Bergen Magazine • Avvo Top 10 Lawyer

© 1997 – 2023   Shapiro, Croland, Reiser, Apfel, & Di Iorio, LLP. All rights reserved. All rights reserved. Advertising Disclaimer: This web site constitutes an ADVERTISEMENT. Before making your choice of attorney, you should give this matter careful thought. The selection of an attorney is an important decision. If you believe this web site is inaccurate or misleading, you may report same to the Committee on Attorney Advertising, Hughes Justice Complex, CN 037, Trenton, N.J. 08625. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Hidden Link