MARTA NINA VS. ALBERT MAHOSKI (FM-18-0150-10, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3328-19

Background

Parties divorced in 2010; their MSA waived traditional child support and required a 50/50 split of unreimbursed medical, dental, prescription, camp, and extracurricular expenses, with a built‑in sanction: if defendant failed to reimburse, the court could impose guideline child support as a penalty without reallocating expense shares.
Post‑divorce, plaintiff obtained sole legal custody in 2016 after defendant refused a best‑interest evaluation and court‑ordered therapy; parenting time was drastically curtailed.
Defendant became unemployed in 2018–2019, sold his NJ home, moved to North Carolina in April 2019, and submitted CIS forms showing modest reported 2018–2019 income but substantial assets (hundreds of thousands of dollars).
Plaintiff moved to enforce unpaid expense reimbursements; the court awarded her $13,283.96 (Oct. 25, 2019) and activated the MSA sanction, directing child support be paid through probation and ordering defendant to submit an updated CIS for imputation.
The court imputed income and calculated guideline child support (weekly payments), credited plaintiff with 365 overnights for sanction purposes, denied defendant’s motions to terminate or reduce support based on his later tax return/CIS, denied reimbursement for tax credits, denied compelled production of certain medical records, but vacated/ remanded only the denial as to confidentiality of defendant’s financial information for correction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant's 2019 tax return/CIS constituted new evidence or a changed circumstance sufficient to terminate or reduce the court‑imposed child support sanction	The court correctly relied on the parties' MSA and imputed income considering defendant's unemployment and assets; no substantial change since the sanction order	2019 tax return and updated CIS show much lower actual earnings and prolonged unemployment, warranting termination/reduction	Denied. The court considered unemployment, past income, and assets; tax return did not show a substantial, non‑temporary change in ability to pay since the sanction order.
Whether crediting plaintiff with 365 overnights (for support calculation) was proper	Plaintiff had sole legal custody since 2016 and the children primarily resided with her; defendant forfeited regular parenting time by relocating	Defendant urged prospective custody schedules and that college time/occasional visits reduce plaintiff's overnights	Affirmed. Defendant’s move to NC effectively eliminated regular parenting time; his certifications lacked credibility, so 365‑overnight credit for sanction purposes was proper.
Whether defendant was entitled to reimbursement or to claim J.L. as dependent for tuition tax credits	Plaintiff paid the majority of college costs and is the custodial parent under IRS criteria; her claiming the credit was permissible	Defendant claimed he paid $5,000 and sought reimbursement or entitlement to claim the dependent after producing proofs	Denied. Defendant misread the prior order; he needed court approval and proofs before claiming/reimbursement. Court acted within discretion in allowing plaintiff to claim the deduction.
Whether the court erred by denying defendant's motion to compel medical records and by refusing to keep his financial data confidential	Plaintiff complied with the MSA (provided receipts; medical expense was uninsured and properly split); records not required; confidentiality denial was inadvertent	Defendant sought records to appeal insurer denial and requested his CIS be kept confidential	Partially affirmed. Denial to compel records and to deny reimbursement was upheld; the court vacated only the portion denying confidentiality and remanded to correct that oversight.

Key Cases Cited

Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374 (App. Div. 1996) (standard for granting reconsideration)
Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) (changed‑circumstances standard for support modification)
Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 2010) (reconsideration relief requires an error that is a "game‑changer")
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (appellate deference to trial court findings supported by substantial credible evidence)
Massar v. Massar, 279 N.J. Super. 89 (App. Div. 1995) (marital agreements treated as contracts and generally enforced)
Pacifico v. Pacifico, 190 N.J. 258 (2007) (contractual nature of matrimonial agreements)
Dorfman v. Dorfman, 315 N.J. Super. 511 (App. Div. 1998) (ability‑to‑pay underpinning support orders)
Heinl v. Heinl, 287 N.J. Super. 337 (App. Div. 1996) (trial court discretion in allocating child‑related tax exemptions)