MARK TERPSTRA v. ANN TERPSTRA

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-112811-07T22811-07T2

MARK TERPSTRA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANN TERPSTRA,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

 

Argued January 27, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Parker and LeWinn.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FM-14-01166-00.

John M. Barbarula argued the cause for appellant (Barbarula Law Offices, attorneys; Mr. Barbarula, on the briefs).

Jennifer S. DeSimone argued the cause for respondent (Smith & Doran, attorneys; Ms. DeSimone, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Mark Terpstra appeals from an order entered on January 10, 2008, finding him in violation of litigant's rights for his "willful and continued violation of the parties' Dual Final Judgment of Divorce as it relates to college expenses incurred on behalf of the parties' children;" and for his "willful and continued violation . . . as it relates to his contribution to unreimbursed medical expenses incurred on behalf of the parties' children." The trial court appended a written statement of reasons to the order. Plaintiff further appeals from an order entered on January 24, 2008 amending the January 10 order to require plaintiff to "provide payment in the amount of $7,083.50 directly to the [d]efendant . . . within forty-five (45) days."

The following facts are relevant to this appeal. The parties were married on May 17, 1986. Three children were born of the marriage, two sons, now ages seven and fourteen, and one daughter, now age eighteen.

After a nine-day trial, a judgment of divorce was entered on November 13, 2003. The judgment required plaintiff to pay alimony in the amount of $400 per week for nine years, child support in the amount of $324 per week in accordance with the guidelines, and college expenses for the children "in accordance with each's [sic] ability to pay which shall include income as well as assets of the parties."

Shortly after the judgment was entered, plaintiff filed for bankruptcy and moved to terminate alimony and child support. That motion was denied in October 2004. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a second motion to be relieved of alimony and child support and that motion was also denied. The alimony, however, was reduced from $400 per week to $300 based upon the court's finding that plaintiff's earnings had decreased.

At this point, the parties are arguing over plaintiff's contribution to their oldest son's college education. Plaintiff is a union carpenter who was earning approximately $85,000 at the time of the trial in 2003. Defendant is a waitress at Red Lobster and was earning approximately $107 per week at that time. She has health insurance through her employment, however, and provides coverage for the children.

With respect to the college expenses, both parties set forth a detailed listing of those expenses. Plaintiff claims that defendant "vilified" him and precluded him from participating in their son's college application process. At the time of the motion, plaintiff was already $6,000 in arrears for child support and alimony.

In his written statement of reasons, Judge Stephan C. Hansbury, who had tried the case and was familiar with the parties, granted defendant's motion to enforce litigant's rights and ordered plaintiff to contribute to college and unreimbursed medical expenses and to pay $4,500 to defendant in counsel fees. The court noted that "[p]laintiff asserts a temporary lack of work as a union carpenter. Temporary unemployment, however, is not a basis to reduce a financial obligation for child support or college expenses. See Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17 (App. Div. [2006])." The court further noted that "plaintiff's own Certification indicates that in 2006, his income from wages as well as an S-corporation exceeded $80,000."

In this appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred (1) in denying a plenary hearing; (2) in its determinations with respect to plaintiff's obligations; and (3) in awarding counsel fees.

We have carefully considered the record and we are satisfied that plaintiff's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). After a lengthy trial and several post-judgment motions, Judge Hansbury was very familiar with plaintiff's financial status. The court's written statement of reasons adequately explains why defendant's motion was granted and is more than adequately supported by the record. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Hansbury in his statement of reasons appended to the order. Nevertheless, we add the following comment.

Plaintiff did not request oral argument in his papers responding to defendant's motion to enforce. Absent a request for oral argument, the matter may be decided "on the papers." R. 1:6-2(d) and R. 5:5-4(a). A request for argument is soundly within the discretion of the trial court. Filippone v. Lee, 304 N.J. Super. 301, 306 (App. Div. 1997). Moreover, we defer to the expertise of the family court and will not disturb its factual findings unless we are "convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-2811-07T2

June 11, 2009