LUCIA NWOSU-SYLVESTER v. CARLOS JOHN EJIOFOR

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0810-10T2

LUCIA NWOSU-SYLVESTER,

F/K/A LUCIA EJLOFOR,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CARLOS JOHN EJIOFOR,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________

November 29, 2012

Submitted August 13, 2012 - Decided

Before Judges Ashrafi and Hayden.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, Docket No. FM 03-1513-05-Z.

Carlos John Ejiofor, appellant, pro se.

Lucia Nwosu-Sylvester, respondent, pro se.

PER CURIAM

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, defendant Carlos John Ejiofor appeals from a September 3, 2010 Family Part order requiring him to pay fifty percent of the parties' children's medical expenses and fifty percent of the maintenance fees for the parties' timeshare. We affirm.

The record reflects that the parties were married in 1989 and had three children. They separated in 2004 and divorced in April 2007. Their final judgment of divorce (FJOD) incorporated an oral property settlement agreement (PSA) placed on the record in open court on March 15, 2007.

Since the FJOD, the parties have engaged in frequent litigation concerning their obligations under the PSA. Pertinentto thisappeal, onJanuary 22,2010, JudgeMichael J. Haas ordered defendant to pay the oldest child's dental and medical expenses with plaintiff, after she paid the first $250 each year, "in proportion to their income as set forth in the FJOD."

Shortly thereafter, defendant filed a motion seeking an order to reduce child support and to compel plaintiff to produce the children for parenting time. Plaintiff filed a cross-motion, with several requests for relief, including an order compelling defendant to pay fifty percent of all three children's medical expenses and compelling defendant to pay fifty percent of the party's timeshare vacation weekly maintenance and to respond to the lawsuit concerning this timeshare.

On September 3, 2010, Judge Kenneth S. Domzalski granted his motion to compel visitation according to the terms of the PSA and denied defendant's motion to decrease child support. The judge also granted plaintiff's motion to order defendant to pay fifty percent of the children's medical expenses but required plaintiff to pay the first $250 annually and to consult with defendant on any medical expenses over $100. In deciding to order each party to pay fifty percent, the judge observed that, although the January 22, 2010 order had required that each party's share of medical expenses be in accordance with his or her income as stated in the PSA, the agreement did not contain this information. Further, the judge ordered defendant to pay fifty percent of the timeshare maintenance. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant raises the following contentions for our consideration.

POINT I - DECISION REACHED BY THE LOWER COURT THAT DEFENDANT/APPELLANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 50% OF UNREIMBURSED MEDICAL AND DENTAL FEES NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE FOR OUR DAUGHTER, [], AFTER THE APPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FIRST $250, FOR THE TIME PERIOD COMMENCING DECEMBER 14, 2009 THROUGH AND INCLUDING PRESENT DATE IS UNFAIR, A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND MISDIRECTION OF LAW.

POINT II - DECISION REACHED BY THE LOWER COURT THAT DEFENDANT/APPELLANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 50% OF UNREIMBURSED MEDICAL AND DENTAL FEES NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE FOR OUR DAUGHTER, [], AFTER APPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FIRST $250, FOR THE TIME PERIOD COMMENCING DECEMBER 14, 2009 THROUGH AND INCLUDING THE PRESENT DATE IS UNFAIR, A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND MISDIRECTION OF LAW.

POINT 3 - DECISION REACHED BY THE LOWER COURT THAT DEFENDANT/APPELLANT SHALL PAY 50% OF FUTURE UNREIMBURSED MEDICAL AND DENTAL FEES NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE FOR OUR THREE CHILDREN AFTER THE APPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FIRST $250 IS UNJUST, EXCESSIVE AND A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

POINT 4 - DECISION REACHED BY THE LOWER COURT THAT DEFENDANT/APPELLANT SHALL PAY SUCH FEES (50% OF UNREIMBURSED/FUTURE UNREIMBURSED MEDICAL AND DENTAL FEES NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE FOR OUR DAUGHTER, [], AND FOR ALL THE CHILDREN AFTER THE APPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FIRST $ 250 FROM DECEMBER 14, 2009 THROUGH AND INCLUDING PRESENT DATE OF JUDGMENT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF RECEIVING THE BILLS FROM PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT IS UNJUST, IMPOSSIBLE FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, EXCESSIVE AND A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

POINT 5 - A COURT OF COORDINATE JURISDICTION MAY NOT HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OVER ANOTHER.

POINT 6 - THE LOWER COURT ORDERS DEFENDANT/APPELLANT TO PAY PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT 50% ($893) OF MAINTENANCE FEES SHE CLAIMS TO HAVE PAID AS MAINTENANCE FEES ON OUR VISTANA TIME SHARE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. THIS ORDER OF COURT IS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE AND OCCASIONS SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE ON THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.

POINT 7 - ORDER OF COURT THAT IN THE FUTURE, PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT SHALL SUPPLY ANY BILLS SHE RECEIVES FROM THE TIMESHARE WITHIN 10 DAYS, TO DEFENDANT/APPELLANT AND WITHIN 14 DAYS, DEFENDANT/APPELLANT SHALL PAY HIS 50% SHARE. THIS ORDER OF COURT IS MANIFESTLY ARBITRARY AND A MISDIRECTION OF LAW.

We review the judge's decision on child support issues such as here under an abuse of discretion standard. Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109, 117 (2012). From our review of the record, we do not find that Judge Domzalski abused his discretion here. We find defendant's arguments to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.