M.L. v. P.J.
A-2728-22
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 11, 2024Background
- Plaintiff (M.L.) and defendant (P.J.) were in a long-term relationship and have two daughters, who have always lived with the plaintiff.
- Defendant previously paid substantial child support, sometimes including Montessori school tuition and dance lesson costs, but unilaterally reduced these payments in 2019 and stopped monthly support by April 2020.
- Child support and dance costs were initially included in a 2018 consent order obligating defendant to pay $4,333 per month in child support and additional dance costs.
- Plaintiff became unemployed in 2018, later resuming part-time work, while defendant, a contractor, alleged limited income but did not submit updated financial documents.
- The Family Part judge reduced child support, determined Montessori tuition was included in support, capped dance lesson payments at $450 per child monthly, but did not use child support guidelines or provide a worksheet in recalculating the amount.
- The Appellate Division affirmed some aspects (inclusion of Montessori tuition and dance lesson payment) but remanded for proper recalculation of child support under required guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calculation of child support | Reduction was in error; guidelines not used | Support should be reduced due to changes | Remanded for proper recalculation using guidelines |
| Inclusion of Montessori tuition | Should not be part of support obligation | Should be included within support | Tuition was correctly included in support obligation |
| Capping dance lesson payments | Payment should be retroactive & based on true cost | Costs should be limited, not all increases covered | Capped at $450/child/month, retroactive inclusion remanded |
| Repayment of child support overpayment | Court should determine a repayment rate | Not specified | No arrangement set— remanded for necessary calculations |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (findings of trial court are binding on appeal when supported by adequate evidence)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (standards for appellate review of factual findings)
- Gormley v. Gormley, 462 N.J. Super. 433 (child support guidelines must be properly applied and worksheet provided)
- Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250 (child support calculation depends on current income information)
- Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109 (standard for abuse of discretion in family law decisions)