EDITH A. DUGGAN v. LARRY S. GELLER

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5532-13T3

EDITH A. DUGGAN,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LARRY S. GELLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

December 9, 2015

Argued November 17, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Espinosa and Rothstadt.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, Docket No. FD-13-1448-97.

Larry S. Geller, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Edith A. Duggan, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Larry Geller appeals from the Family Part's June 26, 2014 order, arguing that the court's decision regarding his and plaintiff Edith A. Duggan's payment of their daughter's college "and other related expenses" was not "in accordance with the best interest" of their child. He also argues the court was not "fair and impartial." We affirm.

The parties are parents to two children; one born in 1994 and the other in 1996. In July 2012,1 defendant filed a motion to terminate support for the older and reduce support for the younger child. Plaintiff cross-moved for various relief, including increased support based on the oldest child's college expenses and enforcement of earlier orders regarding health insurance and other outstanding obligations. Judge Kathleen A. Sheedy considered the parties' written submissions, permitted oral argument, required additional submissions and then considered additional argument. In the court's ensuing order, the judge denied the termination of support for the parties' eldest daughter, reduced defendant's weekly support from seven hundred twenty-six dollars per week to three hundred sixty-three dollars per week, required the parties to share their daughter's college expenses, with defendant being responsible for eighty percent of those costs after financial aid, obligated defendant to reimburse plaintiff for past college expenses and granted plaintiff's motion for enforcement of prior court orders. The judge issued a detailed seventeen-page opinion explaining the reasons for the court's order.

In her written decision, Judge Sheedy determined defendant established a change in circumstances warranting a review of his support obligation based upon the daughter's enrollment in college where she resided during the school year. The court reviewed the financial information submitted by the parties, imputed income to defendant, and applied each of the statutory factors identified in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) to determine support. The judge similarly addressed the issue of college expenses by addressing each of the factors identified by the Court in Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 545 (1982), and determined the parties' obligation for their daughter's college expenses. Finally, the court addressed plaintiff's arguments for enforcement, reviewed the court orders with which plaintiff claimed defendant did not comply, and determined what orders should be enforced, specifically finding that one of plaintiff's arguments regarding the children's custodial accounts - was unsupported by the record.

In support of his argument regarding college expenses, defendant argues, "[t]here is no quarrel in this case that [he] will help support the college expenses [but] 80/20 is not a fair proportion." Instead, he recommends, without any factual or legal support, that "60% for [him]self, 30% for the plaintiff and 10% for the child" is fair. In support of his argument that the court was unfair and biased, he stated that the court's orders regarding his obligations did not display an "attempt to be fair or impartial," and that "the children and [he] deserve better." He recommends that the matter be transferred to another vicinage.

We find defendants arguments to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Sheedy in her comprehensive written decision.

Affirmed.

1 The June 26, 2014 order under appeal reduced defendant's support obligation effective that date. Defendant did not argue before the Family Part judge or to us that the effective date of the reduction should have been retroactive to his motion's filing date. See N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23a ("No payment or installment of an order for child support, or those portions of an order which are allocated for child support . . . shall be retroactively modified by the court except with respect to the period during which there is a pending application for modification, but only from the date the notice of motion was mailed either directly or through the appropriate agent.").