NEWTON G. MOODIE VS. CAROLYN RICHARDS MOODIE(FM-07-1032-09, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0558-15T1

Parties divorced in 2010 and incorporated a matrimonial settlement agreement (MSA). Plaintiff (husband) agreed to pay alimony; defendant (wife) was to search in good faith for higher‑paying employment and provide periodic proof.
MSA required annual exchange of income proofs and semiannual proof of job‑search efforts to use her MBA; MSA did not define "higher paying employment."
Court ordered defendant in Nov. 2013 to perform at least five job searches per week and to provide monthly lists with employer, position, date, and contacts; noncompliance could support reduction/termination of alimony.
Plenary hearing in June 2015: judge found defendant’s job‑search records were incomplete, often vague, and noncompliant; defendant lacked U.S. pharmacist license and was primarily a substitute teacher earning low wages.
Trial judge found defendant voluntarily underemployed, imputed income equivalent to a full‑time teacher’s salary, and terminated alimony and life insurance obligations effective June 30, 2016.
Appellate court affirmed, giving deference to factual findings and credibility determinations; denial of defendant’s reconsideration motion also affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant failed to make a good‑faith, MSA‑required job search	Defendant’s job‑search proofs were inadequate and unverifiable; judge should impute income	She did search and produced lists; judge mischaracterized and ignored compliant evidence	Affirmed: judge’s finding of noncompliance and bad‑faith search supported by substantial credible evidence
Whether income may be imputed and at what level	Impute income based on defendant’s earning capacity (full‑time teacher level)	Imputing full‑time certified teacher salary was improper because she is uncertified and typically a substitute	Affirmed: imputation permissible; evidence supported capacity to earn full‑time teacher salary
Whether trial court’s credibility and evidentiary rulings were erroneous	Court properly weighed credibility and evidentiary sufficiency	Judge erred in assessing credibility and excluded or ignored relevant proof	Affirmed: deference to trial court’s credibility findings and evidentiary rulings; no clear abuse of discretion
Whether denial of reconsideration was improper	Reconsideration improperly denied; judge overlooked record	Motion presented new documents not part of plenary record and did not show palpably incorrect basis	Affirmed: denial proper; motion relied on extrarecord evidence and failed to show arbitrary or irrational decision

Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. Super. 552 (App. Div. 2013) (appellate review of alimony modification gives deference to trial court discretion)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (finding trial‑court factual findings bind appellate court if supported by substantial credible evidence)
Elrom v. Elrom, 439 N.J. Super. 424 (App. Div. 2015) (trial judge’s credibility findings in family matters receive great weight)
Schochet v. Schochet, 435 N.J. Super. 542 (App. Div. 2014) (imputation of income warranted where spouse voluntarily underemployed)
Dorfman v. Dorfman, 315 N.J. Super. 511 (App. Div. 1998) (underemployment means intentionally failing to earn one’s capability)