Husband claim in New Jersey

1952I think, therefore, that an exemption of a disability payment from liability to debts generally is not an exemption thereof from the claims of a wife for alimony." Plaintiff quotes from the case of Schlaefer v. Schlaefer, 71 App. D.C. 350 , 112 F. 2 d 177, 130 A.L.R. 1014 ( U.S.C.A.D.C. 1940), wherein the court held that the husband's disability under an insurance policy was not exempt from but was subject to the payment of alimony, as follows: "* * * inasmuch as the purpose of the exemption statute is to protect not only the husband, but also his family from destitution and becoming a public

1952I think, therefore, that an exemption of a disability payment from liability to debts generally is not an exemption thereof from the claims of a wife for alimony." Plaintiff quotes from the case of Schlaefer v. Schlaefer, 71 App. D.C. 350 , 112 F. 2 d 177, 130 A.L.R. 1014 ( U.S.C.A.D.C. 1940), wherein the court held that the husband's disability under an insurance policy was not exempt from but was subject to the payment of alimony, as follows: "* * * inasmuch as the purpose of the exemption statute is to protect not only the husband, but also his family from destitution and becoming a public

1988The interpretive principle in general application elsewhere is that the essential purpose of such immunity from process is the protection not only of the pensioner, but of his family as well, from destitution and the need for public relief, and, absent a clear and definitive expression contra, the provision will not be read to enable the husband to claim the full benefit of the pension as against his dependent wife and children, and thus to subvert the laws enjoining upon the husband the performance of this basic obligation of the marriage state. [ 13 N.J. at 168 .] In Thiel v. Thiel, 41 N.J.

1988The interpretive principle in general application elsewhere is that the essential purpose of such immunity from process is the protection not only of the pensioner, but of his family as well, from destitution and the need for public relief, and, absent a clear and definitive expression contra, the provision will not be read to enable the husband to claim the full benefit of the pension as against his dependent wife and children, and thus to subvert the laws enjoining upon the husband the performance of this basic obligation of the marriage state. [ 13 N.J. at 168 .] In Thiel v. Thiel, 41 N.J.

1988The interpretive principle in general application elsewhere is that the essential purpose of such immunity from process is the protection not only of the pensioner, but of his family as well, from destitution and the need for public relief, and, absent a clear and definitive expression contra, the provision will not be read to enable the husband to claim the full benefit of the pension as against his dependent wife and children, and thus to subvert the laws enjoining upon the husband the performance of this basic obligation of the marriage state. [ 13 N.J. at 168 .] In Thiel v. Thiel, 41 N.J.

1984Similarly, Gillespie, supra, held that a release executed by the husband was not a bar to the wife's action for loss of consortium.

1979A workers' compensation award was reached for the satisfaction of a judgment for alimony and child support in Steller v. Steller, 97 N.J.

1928Where an heir-at-law (or devisee) redeems a mortgage in which the wife joined the husband the rule in equity is contribution, not exoneration. 19 C.J. 488; 9 R.C.L. 597; 1 Scriviner Dower ( 2d ed. ) 519; Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, 2 N.J.

1928Eq. 349 ; Hinchman v. Stiles, 9 N.J.