NICOLE N. NEWELL VS. DANIEL H. SHAIN (FM-17-0219-12, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3083-15T1
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Sep 7, 2017Background
- Newell and Shain divorced in June 2013; their MSA required Shain to pay Newell $350/week alimony and waived child support.
- Court ordered Shain to pay attorney's fees in December 2013; Newell obtained additional fee awards in 2015 and December 2015.
- Shain was found in contempt for failing to comply with prior fee orders; the court later awarded Newell $697 in attorney's fees for a reconsideration-related motion.
- Shain refused to pay the $697, and Newell moved for wage execution (garnishment).
- Trial court found Shain earned $4,636.29 biweekly (disposable weekly income $1,844.56 after lawful withholdings) and entered a wage execution order that limited garnishment to the least of: 10% of gross, 25% of disposable earnings, or the amount by which disposable earnings exceed $217.50/week.
- Shain appealed, arguing further garnishment would cause financial hardship to his three dependent children and exceed federal/state garnishment limits.
Issues
| Issue | Newell's Argument | Shain's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wage execution was authorized and properly calculated under state and federal law | Wage execution appropriate; judgment exceeds $48/week and defendant has garnishable earnings | Further garnishment would exceed federal/state garnishment limits and cause hardship to dependents | Affirmed: wage execution authorized and within federal/state limits |
| Whether existing alimony payment counts toward federal garnishment caps | Alimony is a separate stipulated obligation, not a percentage of disposable earnings | Alimony plus garnishment would surpass statutory caps | Court computed disposable earnings and concluded combined alimony plus garnishment did not exceed the 55% cap in this case |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in ordering garnishment despite defendant’s dependent children | Plaintiff entitled to enforce fee judgment; hardship does not override statutory caps | Garnishment causes undue financial hardship to minor children | No abuse of discretion: court balanced commitments and applied statutory limits |
| Proper method for allocating garnishment between current support and arrears | Current support paid first; garnishment may cover arrears up to permissible maximum | Not raised as primary defense here | Court applied federal caps and New Jersey precedent allowing garnishment to cover current and arrearage obligations within limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (trial court findings of fact are binding when supported by substantial credible evidence)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (appellate review standards for disturbing trial findings)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Burstein v. Burstein, 182 N.J. Super. 586 (App. Div. 1982) (wage execution may cover both current support and arrears up to permissible maximum)