As one commentator noted, Tort claims, which usually involve a single lump sum award are ... classically legal. A tort plaintiff is generally entitled to a jury trial. The problem thus arises about how to arrange a jury trial for [a party’s] tort claim, while keeping the fact-finding for and administration of the divorce in the judge’s hands---- There are thus two realistic possibilities for managing the problems of a jury trial in [a spouse’s] combined tort and divorce action against [the other spouse]: (1) try the tort claim before a jury first, then incorporate its factual findings and damage award in the judge’s divorce decree; (2) have both the tort and divorce claims decided by a judge. Schepard, supra, at 150; see, e.g., Tevis v. Tevis, 79 N.J. 422, 400 A.2d 1189, 1196 (1979) (<HOLDING>); Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 625
holding that evidence which by due diligence could have been produced in the first proceeding is considered to have been available at the first proceeding and therefore will not preclude the application of collateral estoppel holding that wifes tort claims should have been presented in conjunction with the divorce action to lay at rest all their legal differences in one proceeding and avoid the prolongation and fractionalization of litigation holding that marital tort an assault should have been asserted in the prior divorce action holding that reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision holding that interference claim against supervisors should have been submitted to jury in conjunction with discrimination claims