Christine Avelino-Catabran v. Joseph A. Catabran
139 A.3d 1202
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2016Background
- Parties divorced in 2002; their Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) required parents to split net college costs equally after deductions for scholarships, student loans, grants, and financial aid.
- Eldest daughter, Catherine, enrolled at NYU in fall 2012; total cost ≈ $62,768. NYU awarded scholarship, work-study, student loans, and a Parent PLUS Loan option; defendant took $12,770 of the PLUS Loan with plaintiff's authorization.
- Defendant moved (Oct. 25, 2012) to (a) modify child support given changed living arrangements, (b) require plaintiff to pay half of Catherine’s net college costs, and (c) obtain judgment for amounts on the PLUS Loan/NYU charges.
- Family Part ordered plaintiff to contribute 50% of Catherine’s net college costs (May 12, 2014) and recalculated child support (net $95 weekly to defendant), later making the support modification retroactive to Oct. 25, 2012.
- On appeal plaintiff challenged (1) exclusion of the Parent PLUS Loan from the child’s available financial aid, (2) imposition of a 50% obligation for college costs, and (3) the court’s child support calculation and decision process (no plenary hearing, use of a party’s formula/guidelines worksheet).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parent PLUS Loan is part of child’s financial aid such that it reduces parents’ net college obligation | Avelino-Catabran: PLUS Loan should count as part of Catherine’s financial aid (thus reduce parents’ share) | Catabran: PLUS Loan is a parental borrowing tool and not the child’s aid; court correctly excluded it | Court held PLUS Loans are parent-eligible (not the student’s financial aid); exclusion was correct and plaintiff was responsible for loan she authorized |
| Whether court properly enforced PSA allocation (50/50) versus applying Newburgh factors | Avelino-Catabran: Court should have applied Newburgh factors rather than mechanically enforcing 50/50 | Catabran: PSA clearly allocates net college costs equally; enforce the agreement | Court enforced the clear, unambiguous PSA and ordered equal contributions, finding no inequity warranting departure |
| Whether modification of child support and change in parenting required a plenary hearing | Avelino-Catabran: Court erred by modifying support/custody without a hearing | Catabran: Living arrangements and incomes changed; submissions sufficed to justify modification without plenary hearing | Court did not abuse discretion in finding changed circumstances and denying a plenary hearing; modification trigger was appropriate |
| Whether court correctly calculated child support (method and statement of reasons) | Avelino-Catabran: Court used an improper method (relied on guidelines/defendant’s worksheet) and failed to apply N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) for college student living away | Catabran: Plaintiff failed to object below and offered no alternative formula; calculations were reasonable | Court reversed on support: judge improperly relied on defendant’s guidelines-based calculations for a college student living away and failed to state adequate reasons; remanded for recalculation per applicable law (N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) for college student and Guidelines for remaining child) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standard for appellate review of factual findings)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (deference to family court factfinding)
- Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414 (2015) (appellate deference and standard for disturbing trial findings)
- Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982) (factors for parental contribution to college when no agreement governs)
- Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535 (2006) (standard for college contribution determinations)
- Gotlib v. Gotlib, 399 N.J. Super. 295 (App. Div. 2008) (family court discretion in compelling college contributions)
- Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109 (App. Div. 2012) (guidelines inapplicable for college students living away; must apply N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a))
- Monte v. Monte, 212 N.J. Super. 557 (App. Div. 1986) (trial courts must state clear factual findings and legal reasoning)
- Fodero v. Fodero, 355 N.J. Super. 168 (App. Div. 2002) (worksheet attachment cannot substitute for a statement of reasons)
- Moss v. Nedas, 289 N.J. Super. 352 (App. Div. 1996) (allocating college costs per PSA language and parties’ conduct)
- Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) (when courts may alter agreement due to changed circumstances)
- Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229 (1973) (appellate review limitations on issues not raised below)