Jacoby v. Jacoby
427 N.J. Super. 109
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- Divorce of Kathleen A. Jacoby and Frank C. Jacoby; joint legal custody with children primarily residing with plaintiff.
- Parties agreed child support would cover only property tax and homeowners insurance; future college costs to be shared after aid.
- 2005 modification set defendant’s weekly support based on stated incomes; payment calculated via Guidelines.
- Older child attends college in West Virginia (2007); court used a formula to reduce support for two children to $170 weekly and awarded $2,943.48 for college costs.
- Younger child begins college in Kentucky (2009); defendant seeks reduction based on income drop and child’s away-at-school status; motion judge recalculates under Guidelines.
- Court issues on remand focus on whether Guidelines apply to college students, the law-of-the-case formula, and required factual findings under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23a.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law-of-the-case applicability of the 2007 formula | Jacoby argues the 2007 formula governs future college-absent scenarios as law of the case. | Jacoby contends the formula should be applied to college-age children living away from home. | Law-of-the-case not controlling; remand to determine proper calculation. |
| Whether Guidelines should govern college-student support | Guidelines apply to most cases and support calculations should reflect college costs. | Guidelines generally inapplicable for college students; use broader financial circumstances. | Guidelines should not be mechanically applied; require fact-specific analysis on remand under 2A:34-23a. |
| Need for plenary hearing on remand | Evidence supports reinstating Guidelines-based amounts and costs. | Hearing unnecessary if affidavits show facts; plenary hearing only if genuine issues exist. | Remand may require plenary hearing to resolve disputed facts. |
| Whether differing from prior order constitutes error | Post-2007 conduct and updated incomes justify deviation from earlier formula. | Earlier order reflected law and should guide modification. | Rejected as to binding effect; remand for individualized 2A:34-23a analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (N.J. 1980) (burden to prove changed circumstances in modification)
- Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250 (N.J. 2005) (best interests standard in custody/modification)
- Zazzo v. Zazzo, 245 N.J. Super. 124 (App.Div. 1990) (guidelines limitations on college-cost calculations)
- Foust v. Glaser, 340 N.J. Super. 312 (App.Div. 2001) (discretion in child support awards; abuse of discretion standard)
- Tannen v. Tannen, 416 N.J. Super. 248 (App.Div. 2010) (reasonableness and equity in support awards)
- Steneken v. Steneken, 367 N.J. Super. 427 (App.Div. 2004) (equitable considerations in support awards)
- Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102 (App.Div. 2007) (plenary hearing necessity on disputed issues)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 138 N.J. Super. 436 (App.Div. 1976) (when a plenary hearing is required)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (law-of-the-case flexibility and deference to coordinate courts)
- Hart v. City of Jersey City, 308 N.J. Super. 487 (App.Div. 1998) (flexible application of prior rulings; justice and truth)
- Raynor v. Raynor, 319 N.J. Super. 591 (App.Div. 1999) (guidelines not applicable for unemancipated college students)
- Hudson v. Hudson, 315 N.J. Super. 577 (App.Div. 1998) (college costs vs. child support are discrete obligations)