In Tevis v. Tevis (79 N.J. 422, 400 A.2d 1189 1979, the court held that under that State's "single controversy" rule, the interspousal personal injury claim should have been brought with the matrimonial action so that the issues between the parties could be decided in one proceeding in order to prevent protracted litigation (see Tevis, 79 N.J. at 434, 400 A.2d at 1196). However, that view is decidedly the minority view and the New Jersey Supreme Court has recently acknowledged the potential drawbacks to litigating an interspousal tort claim prior to the divorce proceeding--noting that it "may have a negative psychological impact on parties by prolonging the uncertainty of their marital status" (Brennan v. Orban, 145 N.J. 282, 303, 678 A.2d 667, 678 1996). Indeed, other states to address the issue have reached the conclusion we reach today, emphasizing the fundamental differences between the two types of actions and noting the complications that could result from the rigid application of res judicata principles (see Delahunty v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 236 Conn. 582, 590-594, 674 A.2d 1290, 1295-1296 1996; Henriksen v. Cameron, 622 A.2d 1135, 1141-1142 Me 1993; Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21, 23-24, 520 N.E.2d 151, 153 1988).