STEPHEN E. BRYANT VS. MELISSA J. ELAM (FM-09-1697-00, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3392-16T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Mar 20, 2019Background
- Stephen Bryant and Melissa Elam divorced in 2001; a settlement agreement addressing college contributions was placed on the record at divorce and an unsigned written agreement was later filed.
- The written agreement required parents to contribute to college costs pro rata based on prior-year combined incomes, listing room, board, tuition, books, fees, and transportation as covered expenses.
- In Feb 2017 Elam moved to enforce the college-contribution provisions after the daughter enrolled in college; Bryant did not file written opposition but argued orally and acknowledged the agreement’s college terms as binding.
- The Family Part ordered Bryant to pay 85.14% of the 2017 academic-year college expenses and to pay his son’s tuition upon receipt of invoice.
- Bryant moved for reconsideration, claiming the written agreement did not reflect the on-the-record agreement and sought defendant’s tax returns and SSD award letter; the court denied reconsideration and refused production of those documents.
- On appeal the Appellate Division affirmed enforcement of the written agreement but reversed the denial of Bryant’s request for defendant’s tax returns and SSD letter, remanding for production by date certain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plenary hearing was required to determine if the written agreement reflected the on‑the‑record settlement | Bryant: written agreement differs from on‑record terms; hearing required to resolve dispute | Elam: written agreement is binding and has been treated as such by both parties | Court: No plenary hearing needed; parties recognized and relied on the written agreement; plaintiff’s conduct estops him and laches barred late challenge |
| Whether Bryant must contribute to college costs and calculation of shares | Bryant: challenges enforcement and calculation | Elam: agreement requires pro rata contributions based on prior-year incomes; enforcement appropriate | Court: Enforcement affirmed; Bryant bound to pay 85.14% share for 2017 expenses |
| Whether a hearing was required to determine parties’ incomes and whether discovery (tax returns, SSD letter) should be produced | Bryant: needs hearing and financial documents to verify Elam’s income and correct contribution ratio | Elam: court relied on available information; opposed or did not consent to producing documents | Court: No plenary hearing required, but defendant must produce income tax returns and SSD award letter; remanded to order production by date certain |
| Whether enforcement should be avoided because children didn’t consult father on college choice and whether judge recusal was required | Bryant: children failed to consult him; seeks relief and new judge on remand | Elam: not raised below or insufficient to avoid contractual obligation | Court: Issues not properly raised below; court rejected these claims and found recusal request meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (recognition of appellate deference to trial court factual findings)
- Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (plenary hearing required only where genuine, material factual dispute exists)
- Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102 (hearing required only for genuine and substantial factual disputes)
- State v. Galicia, 210 N.J. 364 (appellate courts generally will not consider issues not raised below)
- Fox v. Millman, 210 N.J. 401 (definition and operation of laches as an equitable defense)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (standard for intervening where trial court findings may be clearly mistaken)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (same)