GLENN KESSLER v. LAURIE KESSLER

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0006-08T30006-08T3

GLENN KESSLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LAURIE KESSLER,

Defendant-Respondent.

_________________________________________________

 

Submitted June 30, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Wefing.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, Docket No. FM-13-456-02-C.

Glenn Kessler, appellant pro se.

Respondent Laurie Kessler has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from July 18, 2008 and August 6, 2008 post-judgment orders entered in his matrimonial action. Plaintiff's argument is directed solely at paragraph five of the July 18, 2008 order, which requires him to pay 60% of the costs of his children's attendance at summer camp, and paragraph one of the August 6, 2008 order, which requires this payment to be made within thirty days of receiving receipts evidencing those costs. Plaintiff's total obligation under these orders is $3,234.

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in imposing this obligation because defendant violated the part of the property settlement agreement which requires "[t]he parties [to] consult with each other with respect to the children's summer camp selection[s]" and "[to] make every reasonable effort to have all important decisions affecting the children made with the consent of both parties." Plaintiff alleges that defendant failed to consult with him before enrolling the children in summer camp. In addition, plaintiff argues that the effect of the trial court's decision was to give defendant "unfettered discretion to financially commit [plaintiff] to a summer camp that he could not afford." Plaintiff also claims that the court erred in requiring him to pay 60% of the cost of the children's summer camp.

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring plaintiff to pay 60% of the costs of the children's attendance at summer camp during the summer of 2008. However, we do not read the court's opinion to abrogate defendant's obligation under the property settlement agreement to consult with plaintiff regarding the selection of a summer camp in future years or plaintiff's right to object to defendant's proposed selection of a summer camp on any ground including cost. Subject to this understanding of the court's opinion, we affirm paragraph five of the July 18, 2008 order as modified by paragraph one of the August 6, 2008 order.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0006-08T3

July 24, 2009