CHERYL VAN SCIVER VS. SHAWN J. BETTEN (FM-04-1514-16, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3874-19

Background

Cheryl Van Sciver and Shawn Betten divorced in 2016; their marital settlement agreement (MSA) obligated each parent to contribute to children's college costs based on "then-existing financial circumstances" and Newburgh factors; the MSA noted each child would have two years of Post‑9/11 GI Bill transferred by Betten.
In 2018 the parties entered a consent order recalculating incomes and allocating non‑Guideline expenses (defendant to pay 59%); subsequently their son was admitted to Syracuse University.
Disputes arose over how much each parent must pay after veterans' benefits, scholarships, and loans; plaintiff claimed only 18 months of GI Bill remained (not two years) and sought to hold defendant responsible for the shortfall; defendant sought to limit his exposure and to credit veterans' benefits as his contribution.
The Family Part judge (without a plenary hearing) fixed child support, denied holding defendant liable for missing veterans' benefits, and sua sponte imposed a $10,000 per year cap per child on parental contributions (51% defendant / 49% plaintiff), requiring children to cover remaining costs.
On appeal the Appellate Division reversed the denial of reconsideration, vacated the college‑contribution cap and child support determinations, and remanded for fuller findings and, if necessary, a plenary hearing and updated financial disclosures.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did judge abuse discretion by imposing a $10,000 annual cap on parental college contributions?	Cap is arbitrary, contrary to MSA (no cap), and improperly shifts cost to child; judge failed to apply Newburgh factors or make findings.	Cap is reasonable to limit obligation, promote parental input and financial certainty.	Vacated and remanded: cap not in MSA; judge gave inadequate findings tied to incomes/Newburgh factors; MSA must be enforced absent extraordinary circumstances.
Should defendant be held liable for missing veterans' benefits he allegedly used?	Defendant misrepresented/transferred benefits and must cover the deficit.	No proof defendant used or caused loss of benefits; benefits administration outside his control.	Affirmed as to denial: no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing; insufficient basis to assign liability.
Was a plenary hearing required before resolving college‑cost allocation?	Yes — motion record lacked detailed financial facts and contested issues require plenary hearing.	(Defendant did not press for plenary hearing; agreed with cap.)	Remand: if disputed material facts remain, judge should hold a plenary hearing after updated disclosures; case management conference recommended.
Were child support calculations (younger child) erroneous and in need of correction?	Judge miscalculated Guidelines and should set higher support; recalculation needed.	Defendant did not substantively contest on appeal.	Vacated: child support award vacated/ remanded because college‑contribution determination affects parents' ability to pay and Guidelines recalculation; recalculation to occur on remand.

Key Cases Cited

Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982) (sets Newburgh factors for parental college‑expense contributions)
Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535 (2006) (court must balance statutory criteria and Newburgh factors in college‑expense decisions)
Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 2010) (standards for reconsideration motions)
Capparelli v. Lopatin, 459 N.J. Super. 584 (App. Div. 2019) (enforce MSA as written absent extraordinary circumstances)
Quinn v. Quinn, 225 N.J. 34 (2016) (courts must enforce clear contractual intent in MSAs)
Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563 (1980) (Rule 1:7‑4 requires specific findings of fact and law)
Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 2012) (plenary hearing required where material facts are disputed)