# Mani v. Mani

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · April 6, 2005 · 183 N.J. 70

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700996

## Case

- **Full name:** Brenda Mani, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James J. Mani, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** April 6, 2005
- **Citations:** 183 N.J. 70; 869 A.2d 904; 2005 N.J. LEXIS 298
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wallace
- **Judges:** Long, Wallace, Rivera-Soto
- **Cited by:** 101 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700996

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining a court "must" consider these factors even though Rule 5:3-5(c) says a court "should" consider them
- noting that only economic fault, or depletion of family resources, may be considered in alimony awards

## Opinion text

WALLACE, JR.,
concurring.
I concur in the result. Unlike the majority, I find no need to refine and expand upon when it is appropriate to use marital fault in determining an alimony award. I am satisfied with the view we expressed in Kinsella, supra, that “marital fault rarely enters in the calculus of an alimony award.” 150 N.J. at 315, 696 A.2d 556 . Our trial judges have consistently complied with that admonition as evidenced by the paucity of appeals in which fault is an issue in determining the amount of the award of alimony.
Moreover, in the present case, the trial judge did not consider fault in computing the alimony award. I find no abuse of discretion in that regard.
In all other respects I concur with the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700996. Public record. Not legal advice.