LISA PISZEL v. WILLIAM M. ANTONUCCI, JR.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2150-05T12150-05T1

LISA PISZEL f/k/a

LISA ANTONUCCI,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM M. ANTONUCCI, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________

 

Submitted July 5, 2006 - Decided August 1, 2006

Before Judges Skillman and Lisa.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FM-14-11820-90.

William M. Antonucci, Jr., appellant pro se.

Lisa Piszel, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

Pursuant to a post-judgment order entered on August 20, 1993, defendant was obligated to pay plaintiff $150 per week in child support for the three children born of the parties' marriage.

On September 26, 2005, defendant filed a motion for an order emancipating the oldest child, Stephanie Ann, who attained the age of majority on August 23, 2001 and has now graduated from college, and reducing his child support for the two unemancipated children from $150 per week to $100 per week based on the changed circumstance of Stephanie Ann becoming emancipated. The motion was supported by a case information statement in which defendant reported his own current income and other financial information. Defendant's case information statement did not include any information regarding plaintiff's current income.

Plaintiff did not file any response to defendant's motion.

According to defendant, despite the absence of any response to his motion, the trial court insisted that he submit information regarding plaintiff's income before the court would rule on the motion. In response to this demand, defendant submitted a supplemental certification, dated November 9, 2005, which stated in pertinent part:

3. [Plaintiff] and I have had very little communication, in the past ten years. What little communication we have had was perfunctory at best. The last verbal communication between us was April, 2004 when we discussed medical insurance for the children. She has been less than forthcoming with any personal information. As an example, on September 4, 2004 I posted a letter to [plaintiff] through the regular postal service asking for the name of the insurance company and other pertinent information that is insuring the children for medical care. I have never received an answer. On October 11, 2004 I posted another letter as certified mail with a return receipt asking for the same insurance information. I have never received an answer. It was only after hiring an attorney at a great expense to me, did I obtain the information I needed. Clearly, if she will not respond to requests for the name of the insurance company that is insuring our children, information to which I am obviously entitled, I doubt she will share her annual income figures with me.

4. However, a document to which I have had access shows [plaintiff's] employment title as "Human Resources Administrator." The US Bureau of Labor Statistics reports published estimates of salary for "personnel, training, and labor relations specialists" at an "overall level" in the "New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA" area as of April 2004 of $26.35 per hour. [Plaintiff] has been with the same employer for several years. Therefore, I can only assume her salary has gone up considerably from there. Additionally, I was told by her, that she has been remarried since December 26, 1993.

The court issued an order on November 22, 2005, which declared that Stephanie is emancipated, but increased defendant's child support obligation from $150 to $189 per week. The court apparently used the $26.35 per hour figure derived from U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics reports referred to in defendant's supplemental certification to calculate a hypothetical income for plaintiff and then used that income to determine, based on the Child Support Guidelines, Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-A to R. 5:6A at 2301 (2006), that defendant's current child support obligation is $189 per week.

The trial court correctly rejected defendant's application simply to reduce his child support obligation by one-third because one of his three children had become emancipated. When a court determines that a modification of child support is warranted in light of changed circumstances, it is required to redetermine that obligation by applying the child support guidelines to the parties' current financial circumstances. See Terry v. Terry, 270 N.J. Super. 105, 121 (App. Div. 1994); Zazzo v. Zazzo, 245 N.J. Super. 124, 129 (App. Div. 1990), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 321 (1991). However, this determination must be made on the basis of competent, reliable evidence of those circumstances.

Defendant did not purport to have any personal knowledge of plaintiff's current income. The only figure he provided to the trial court was obtained from a United States Bureau of Labor Statistics report that provided an estimate of average hourly income for persons in plaintiff's general field working in the North East. Consequently, the court erred in failing to require plaintiff to submit a current case information statement reflecting her actual current income and failing to redetermine defendant's current child support obligation in light of that actual income figure. See Terry v. Terry, 270 N.J. Super. at 121; Zazzo v. Zazzo, supra, 245 N.J. Super. at 129.

Accordingly, the part of the November 22, 2005 order that increased defendant's child support obligation from $150 per week to $189 per week is vacated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

 

Plaintiff attached a pay stub to her letter brief filed in this appeal. This document was not submitted to the trial court and therefore is not a proper part of the record on appeal. See State v. Golotta, 178 N.J. 205, 212 (2003). In any event, the pay stub is not a substitute for the complete case information statement required under the court rules and governing case law.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-2150-05T1

August 1, 2006