When the alimony statute was amended in 2014, gone was the notion of permanent alimony which had no bright line in terms of years of marriage where someone was eligible to receive it. Rather, it was replaced with open durational alimony, which was largely semantical and perhaps a distinction without a difference, but one. To receive open durational alimony, parties had to be married for 20 years. In short, a rare bright line in New Jersey family law was born.

One of the other reasonably true bright lines is that the terminal day of the marriage is the filing of a Complaint for Divorce, though people can enter into cut-off agreements to fix the date. Otherwise, there are only very limited circumstances in which another day is used. And while 20 years is a bright line for a court to consider awarding open durational alimony, it is not required to, though many (most) people believe otherwise.

That didn’t stop the husband in S.S. v. A.T.S., Jr., an unreported (non-precedential) Appellate Division decision released on November 25, 2025, from taking the position that his 20+ year marriage was actually not 20+ years.

In that case, the parties were married on June 8, 2003. Husband filed a divorce complaint on April 3, 2023 – a few months shy of 20 years, that was dismissed for failure to prosecute because the complaint was never served on the wife. The wife filed a complaint for divorce on November 28, 2023, just after the parties’ 20th anniversary.

The parties lived together until 2013, when a TRO was entered against the wife. The parties reconciled and lived together in the marital home until May 2015 when husband moved out.

After the separation, the Husband continued to deposit half of the mortgage payment for the marital home into the joint account that they previously deposited all of their income into.

Wife testified that the parties continued to see each other after the separation, had marital relations in “the summer of 2020, 2021 “, husband would stay at the house for days and weeks at a time, he entertained friends at the marital home, etc.

Husband testified that he “…would[ not] say” the parties were “married for over [twenty] years” because “[they] separated a few different times” and “the final separation occurred in May of 2015.” He denied having marital relations with the wife or staying at the home for more than one or two nights.

The trial judge found wife credible and that husband was “less than credible.” The trial judge also found that his “theory of the case and testimony were not legally sustainable” and “[a]s such, plaintiff incurred extensive legal fees.”

The court awarded the wife open durational alimony. The Appellate Division affirmed, noting:

We are satisfied the court did not misapply its discretion by awarding open durational alimony. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b), courts are permitted to “award one or more of the following types of alimony: open durational alimony; rehabilitative alimony; limited duration alimony[,] or reimbursement alimony to either party” after considering the non-exhaustive list of enumerated factors. Open durational alimony is the presumptive award for lengthy marriages. See Gonzalez-Posse v. Ricciardulli, 410 N.J. Super. 340, 353 (App. Div. 2009).

However, the length of a marriage alone cannot determine alimony. Economic dependence is a “crucial finding” necessary to award alimony. Gnall v. Gnall, 432 N.J. Super. 129, 149 (App. Div. 2013), rev’d on other grounds, 222 N.J. 414 (2015). “‘The extent of actual economic dependency, not one’s conduct as a cohabitant, must determine the duration of support as well as its amount.'” Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. Super. 552, 571 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting Gayet v.
Gayet, 92 N.J. 149, 154 (1983)). Courts must evaluate all the facts when determining whether a claim of economic dependence warrants long-lasting support. Gnall, 432 N.J. Super. at 153.

Defendant argues the court improperly awarded open durational alimony because the marriage did not “last long[] than twenty . . . years.” We are not persuaded.

Plaintiff testified she did not “feel like the marriage had ended” in 2015 because the parties “continued to see each other on a regular basis.” According to plaintiff, “[a]t one point, [defendant] came over every day after work to have drinks, have cocktails, do yardwork, [and] fix faucets.” She testified they had sexual relations in “the summer of 2020, 2021[,]” and felt “[they] were in an exclusive relationship.” Plaintiff testified defendant would “come . . . and stay for days and weeks. . . . His friends would come over. [They] looked like a
couple on the outside.”

The court found plaintiff’s testimony credible and defendant’s less than credible. We defer to the court’s credibility determinations and do not see any basis to conclude the court misapplied its discretion by determining the term of the marriage was over twenty years..

We are not persuaded by defendant’s claim that the court improperly used the date of the filing of the complaint in this case as the filing date of the divorce action. It is well settled that the filing of the divorce complaint is generally used to determine the end of the marriage. See Painter v. Painter, 65 N.J. 196 (1974). We are satisfied the court properly determined the end date of the marriage based on the date plaintiff filed her complaint in this action rather than defendant’s earlier dismissed complaint. There is no reason for us to disturb the court’s
decision to award plaintiff open durational alimony based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case.

Given that the statute allows payors to retire at age 67, this may be much ado about nothing, though the standard to get out from under open durational alimony may not be the same as limited duration alimony. That said, in most cases, courts treat the bright line of 20 years as a bright line.

Also, it is clear that feeling that your marriage isn’t 20 years does not make it so.

Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Department of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys. Eric is resident in Fox Rothschild’s Morristown, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973) 994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.