JENNIFER SOWA VS. MICHAEL SOWA (FM-14-1237-13, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1429-16T1

Parties divorced by Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) in November 2013; MSA required defendant (Michael Sowa) to pay alimony and child support and conditioned any modification on Lepis standards and a six‑month unemployment showing.
Defendant was unemployed at divorce, remained unemployed ~20 months, and filed a motion in December 2014 to terminate alimony/modify child support; that motion was denied January 9, 2015 for inadequate job search efforts and failure to explore employment at any level.
Reconsideration of the January 9, 2015 order was denied March 26, 2015. Defendant filed a substantially similar August 2015 motion (with an incomplete Case Information Statement) and then obtained employment weeks later but did not amend the pending motion to reflect his new salary.
February 26, 2016 judge denied relief but sent matter to a post‑judgment early settlement panel; after the panel the judge scheduled a plenary hearing for June but rescinded it May 27, 2016 because defendant had not made a prima facie showing of changed circumstances.
Defendant moved for reconsideration in June 2016; the judge denied it November 3, 2016 and awarded plaintiff counsel fees for bad faith without articulated factual findings. Defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant's June 2016 motion was a permissible reconsideration or an impermissible reconsideration of a reconsideration	Sowa argued the June 2016 motion merely reasserted prior relief and was improper; plaintiff contended prior orders stood and motion was untimely	Michael argued the June motion sought reconsideration of the May 27 order and should be heard	Court: June 2016 motion was an improper reconsideration of an earlier reconsideration and denial was proper
Whether defendant was entitled to a plenary hearing on his August 2015 motion to reduce alimony/child support	Plaintiff argued defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and thus no plenary hearing was required	Defendant argued he merited a plenary hearing on changed circumstances (unemployment then lower earnings)	Court: No prima facie showing; plenary hearing not required because defendant reargued prior claims and failed to provide updated wage/CIS information
Whether the award of counsel fees to plaintiff was properly supported	Plaintiff sought fees as sanctions for defendant's bad‑faith litigation	Defendant argued fees were unsupported and judge failed to make findings	Court: Fee award reversed and remanded because judge failed to articulate factual findings correlating to legal standard for bad faith/fee award

Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (standard governing modification of alimony)
Bisbing v. Bisbing, 445 N.J. Super. 207 (prima facie requirement for plenary hearing in post‑judgment family matters)
Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17 (appellate review standard — abuse of discretion)
D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392 (standards and limited scope for reconsideration)
Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563 (requirement that trial courts state factual findings and correlate them with legal conclusions)