LUCIA COLACURTO v. ANTHONY COLACURTO (FM-02-2627-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1112-20

Parties divorced in 2014; daughter born 2012. PSA/FJOD awarded joint legal custody: plaintiff as parent of primary residence (PPR) and defendant as parent of alternate residence (PAR), with detailed overnight and midweek visitation.
PSA imputed incomes for child support: plaintiff $60,000; defendant $50,000. PSA also referenced a Best Interests Evaluation and the parties' agreement to use a Parent Coordinator (PC), though none had been appointed until the 2020 order.
Post-divorce relations were acrimonious with multiple enforcement and modification motions; updated evaluator recommended no change to defendant's parenting time.
Defendant moved (Sept. 2020) to modify custody/parenting time (citing plaintiff’s relocation to Chatham, remarriage, and the child’s complaints) and to recalculate child support (alleging changed income circumstances). Plaintiff cross-moved to enforce childcare obligations, unpaid counsel fees, therapy participation, and other restrictions.
Family Part denied defendant’s modification and recalculation requests for lack of a prima facie showing of changed circumstances, appointed a Parent Coordinator, and granted several of plaintiff’s enforcement requests (childcare payment, outstanding legal fee, and requiring defendant to bring the child to extracurriculars during his time). Defendant appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether custody/parenting time should be modified	Maintain existing arrangement; oppose modification	Move to Chatham, remarriage, child’s complaints and schedule create substantial change affecting child’s welfare	Denied — defendant failed to show prima facie changed circumstances; court appointed PC to address co-parenting disputes
Whether child support should be recalculated / anti-Lepis clause applies to child support	Continue to enforce PSA imputations (plaintiff agreed to remain imputed $60k)	PSA’s anti-Lepis language does not bar modification of child support; plaintiff’s income changed so support should be recalculated	Denied recalculation — no prima facie showing of changed circumstances; court did not decide scope of anti-Lepis clause; plaintiff remains imputed at $60k and defendant’s income met or exceeded $50k
Whether defendant’s motion complied with procedural requirements (Rule 5:5-4)	Enforce procedural compliance for modification motions	Defendant submitted incomplete financial documentation (missing Schedule E and prior CIS)	Noted noncompliance; judge could properly deny without prejudice; procedural failure supported denying recalculation request

Thieme v. Aucoin-Thieme, 227 N.J. 269 (2016) (Family Part has special expertise in family matters; appellate deference on factual findings)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (framework for family-court decisionmaking and deference)
Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) (changed-circumstances standard for modification of support)
Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102 (App. Div. 2007) (prima facie showing required before plenary hearing on custody modification)
Quinn v. Quinn, 225 N.J. 34 (2016) (contract principles govern PSAs and anti-Lepis clauses enforceable when parties bargained knowingly)
Morris v. Morris, 263 N.J. Super. 237 (App. Div. 1993) (definition and enforcement of anti-Lepis clauses)
Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (1999) (public policy favoring stability of matrimonial arrangements)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standard for abuse of discretion review)