MICHELE ALMEIDA v. KEVIN M. DYKHOUSE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5028-11T4

MICHELE ALMEIDA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KEVIN M. DYKHOUSE,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________ _____________

Submitted May 7, 2013 Decided May 13, 2013

Before Judges Reisner and Harris.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County, Docket No. FD-16-1730-98.

Keith, Winters & Wenning, attorneys for appellant (Brian D. Winters, on the brief).

Michele Almeida, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Kevin M. Dykhouse appeals from a May 17, 2012 order entered by the Family Part, following a remand from this court. Almeida v. Dykhouse, No. A-2474-10 (App. Div. Feb. 9, 2012). We affirm.

As we explained in more detail in our prior opinion, the parties have engaged in protracted legal wrangling over financial issues. Our remand directed the trial court to address several discrete issues that we found required reconsideration or a more specific statement of reasons. Those issues were as follows: the basis for the court's additional award of medical reimbursement, beyond the $327.48 that defendant owed plaintiff for the cost of an insulin pump; the court's order that defendant pay 50% of the cost of health insurance premiums on a going-forward basis; and the reasons for awarding plaintiff her counsel fees and findings as to the reasonableness of the amount of those fees.

On May 14, 2012, the Family Part judge issued a written opinion addressing each remanded issue in detail. The judge reduced the amount defendant owed for prior medical bills from $760.96 to $138. The judge also vacated the portion of his prior order, requiring defendant to pay 50% of plaintiff's health insurance premiums for the parties' son, and reduced the award of fees and costs in favor of plaintiff from $1200 to $600.

On this appeal, defendant argues that, in addition to eliminating his current obligation to pay 50% of the health insurance premiums, the Family Part should have granted him a retroactive credit of $39 per week from April 4, 2008 to the present, representing amounts defendant claims he should not have had to pay for health insurance premiums in the past.

In our prior opinion, we carefully limited the issues that were remanded to the trial court. We conclude that the issue defendant is raising on this appeal was not within the scope of our remand. We also find nothing in the record presented to us to suggest that defendant raised this issue before the trial judge on the remand. Therefore, we will not consider the issue, because it is not properly before us on this appeal. See Neider v. Royal Indemn. Ins. Co., 62 N.J.229, 234-35 (1973).

Affirmed.