MICHAEL CATCHPOLE VS. HUI ZHANG (FM-07-1130-12, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-5344-14T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Aug 9, 2017Background
- Parties married in 2006, one child (daughter). Divorce trial after ~5.5-year marriage; judge presided over six-day trial and numerous pendente lite motions.
- Marriage involved two notable domestic violence incidents; parties executed a 2010 pre-divorce consent order drafted by Zhang’s counsel while Catchpole was unrepresented.
- Consent order contained broad financial commitments by Catchpole (mortgage/taxes/insurance, $3,000/month child support, transfer of ~$70,000 in joint accounts to Zhang, tuition obligations, etc.); court found some provisions resulted from overreaching by Zhang and her counsel.
- At trial a custody evaluator found both parents fit, recommended Zhang remain primary residential parent but expanded father’s parenting time; court restrained both parents from taking child abroad and ordered passport held by the court.
- Court enforced some consent-order provisions (e.g., transfer of $70,000), struck or modified others (e.g., indefinite lifetime financial obligations), awarded equal distribution of home equity and retirement, gave Catchpole credits for pendente lite overpayments and for content retained by Zhang, and awarded Zhang limited-duration alimony of $2,500/month (four years), adjusted for credits already paid.
Issues
| Issue | Catchpole’s Argument | Zhang’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restriction on Zhang filing relocation application to China for five years | Supported restriction to prevent removal and protect child stability | Restriction infringed her right to access courts and was overbroad | Court imposed five-year bar; appellate panel remanded to excise the filing-restriction but left passport control in place (restriction removed on appeal) |
| Enforceability of pre-divorce consent order | Consent agreement resulted partly from Zhang’s overreach; court may enforce fair provisions and strike unfair/indefinite ones | Agreement should be enforced as written | Court enforced finite, fair provisions (e.g., $70,000 transfer) and struck/modifed indefinite or unconscionable terms (e.g., lifelong mortgage/tuition obligations) — affirmed |
| Income/support calculations and health-insurance credit | Use current job salary (exclude non-recurring severance/bonuses); apply Guidelines for child-support and health-insurance credit division | Zhang contested income rounding and some credit calculations | Court’s income choices (exclude one-time severance, round incomes, calculate $60/week health credit) followed Guidelines and were upheld |
| Pendente lite payments, credits, and alimony duration | Pendente lite overpayments and mortgage/utilities payments should credit Catchpole; alimony should account for pendente lite support already paid | Zhang argued credits lacked proof; sought longer alimony term | Court credited Catchpole for overpayments (supported by filings and certifications), applied pendente lite payments against alimony, and awarded limited-duration alimony consistent with statute — affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (discussing deference to trial factfinding and credibility assessments)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv’r Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (standard for appellate review of factual findings)
- Segal v. Segal, 278 N.J. Super. 218 (enforceability of marital agreements; courts may decline to enforce agreements resulting from overreaching)
- Quinn v. Quinn, 225 N.J. 34 (family court authority to reform settlements for unconscionability or overreaching)
- Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (limited role of strict contract principles in domestic relations)
- Mallamo v. Mallamo, 280 N.J. Super. 8 (pendency orders subject to modification at plenary trial)