YVETTE BERTHOUMIEUX-EGAS v. RONALD BERTHOUMIEUX

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

YVETTE BERTHOUMIEUX-EGAS,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RONALD BERTHOUMIEUX,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

August 5, 2015

Submitted February 2, 2015 Decided

Before Judges St. John and Rothstadt.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-0014-10.

Ronald Berthoumieux, appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

In this post-judgment dissolution matter, defendant Ronald Berthoumieux appeals from the Family Part's October 11, 2013 order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court's July 26, 2013 order. According to the Family Part judge's statement of reasons for denying the motion, the earlier order was the result of the undisputed emancipation of the parties' only child. In the parties' cross motions, which resulted in the July order, defendant sought his daughter's emancipation and requested to pay twenty-five dollars per week towards his support arrears. Plaintiff sought an order directing defendant to pay to her almost eight thousand dollars to reimburse her for payments she made for the child's college and medical expenses.

As the court stated in its written decision, it "granted [d]efendant's request to emancipate [the child], granted [p]laintiff's request to increase defendant's arrears by [approximately eight thousand dollars], denied [d]efendant's request to maintain his current arrears payment of [twenty-five dollars] per week and increased [d]efendant's arrears payment to [one hundred twenty-nine dollars] per week." That amount equaled his total weekly support obligation for his daughter. The amount was not increased but kept at the same level and payable only towards his substantial arrears. The court did so because it "recognize[d d]efendant's continuing financial difficulties."

The court later denied defendant's reconsideration motion because it found defendant failed to meet the standards for reconsideration as defined by Rule 4:49-2. It concluded defendant "failed to show where the [c]ourt erred or provide any case law or statute to the contrary of th[e c]ourt's decision."

We glean from defendant's pithy submission and limited appendix, his argument on appeal is the court erred because it did not consider his "inability to make the ordered weekly payment." In his brief, defendant argues that he is receiving public assistance and cannot afford to meet his financial obligations. He states that he presented to the Family Part "both the divorce decree and the facts relating to his financial condition, however, [the judge] denied [his] motion even though the decree clearly stated that obligation towards college tuition and its related expenses were 'to be determined at the time the child attends college and shall be based upon the respective means of the parties at that time.'" However, other than his unsupported statements, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating what financial information, if any, defendant supplied to the court to support his contentions. His appendix on appeal contains copies of the order under review, the July order and the November 19, 2001 amended final judgment of divorce.

We are not able to perform our appellate function as a result of defendant failing to provide us with a complete appendix that should have included copies of the motions he filed with the supporting financial documentation. Without those documents, we simply cannot determine if the judge improperly denied the reconsideration motion. Defendant's failure to supply them breached his "oblig[ation] to provide the court with 'such other parts of the record . . . as are essential to the proper considerations of the issues.'" Soc y Hill Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Soc y Hill Assocs., 347 N.J. Super. 163, 177 (App. Div. 2002) (quoting R. 2:6-1(a)(1)([I]); R. 2:6-3). "Without the necessary documents, we have no basis for determining that some or all of the defects that" defendant argues were improperly decided by the Family Part judge. Ibid. We acknowledge that defendant includes in his appendix a January 7, 2014 letter from a county board of social services describing assistance paid to defendant at that time as well as a copy of an order entered on January 9, 2014, fixing his payment toward arrears at the rate of two-hundred dollars per month. These documents were obviously not part of the record related to the reconsideration motion or the July 2013 order. As such, we give them no consideration. However, because the benefits referred to in the letter are excluded from defendant's gross income under the child support guidelines, see Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-B (2015), unless "the court concludes that the parent is earning or has the ability to earn additional income." Burns v. Edwards, 367 N.J. Super. 29, 33, 36-37, 41 (App. Div. 2004) ("[t]he intent of the child-support framework to ensure that parents support their children has no application to those parents whose sole source of income is SSI, and where such parents have no ability to generate any additional income"). For that reason, if defendant is receiving such assistance, he must pursue relief from the current support order for payment towards arrears through a motion for modification to the Family Part supported by sufficient evidence.

Affirmed.