J.M. v. M.M.
A-3949-22
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 17, 2024Background
- J.M. (plaintiff/ex-husband) and M.M. (defendant/ex-wife) divorced in 2019 after a nine-year marriage, with three children involved.
- Their Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) provided for joint legal and equal physical custody, no child support, no alimony, and defendant’s rent-free use of a marital rental property for three years while plaintiff paid the mortgage.
- After the defendant’s rent-free arrangement ended, she sought child support and financial discovery, arguing the loss of free housing was a substantial change in circumstances.
- The family court initially denied her application for child support modification, financial discovery, proportional division of mediation costs, and counsel fees.
- Defendant appealed the denial, particularly challenging the finding of no change in circumstances, in light of her now-incurred housing expenses.
- On appeal, the Appellate Division accepted the changed circumstances argument and reversed and remanded for further proceedings, including exchange of financial discovery and reconsideration of related orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is loss of rent-free housing a changed circumstance justifying child support? | Agreed cessation marks change but disputes amount and start date | Loss of rent-free housing equals loss of in-kind child support | Yes, loss of free housing is changed circumstance warranting child support |
| Should financial discovery be exchanged to calculate support? | Submitted CIS but not full documentation | Plaintiff must provide financials for proper child support calculation | Yes, financial discovery from both required for accurate child support review |
| Should mediation costs be divided proportionally by income? | Split costs equally | Costs should reflect each party’s financial ability | Trial court must revisit cost allocation once support issue is resolved |
| Appropriateness of denying counsel fees | Fees not warranted | Sought fees for motion and reconsideration | Must be revisited after child support determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (modification of child support requires a showing of changed circumstances and best interests of the child govern)
- Gotlib v. Gotlib, 399 N.J. Super. 295 (child support is the right of the child and cannot be waived by parents)
- Dolce v. Dolce, 383 N.J. Super. 11 (agreements about child support are subject to judicial scrutiny and modification in the child’s best interest)
- Chobot v. Chobot, 224 N.J. Super. 648 (support agreements are not immutable and can be reviewed in light of changed circumstances)
- MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 191 N.J. 240 (appellate review standard for family court findings)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (appellate deference to family judge’s fact findings)