DEANNA TOMASSO-ADDEO v. ERIC ADDEO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

DEANNA TOMASSO-ADDEO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ERIC ADDEO,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

February 19, 2016

Submitted January 21, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Fuentes, Koblitz and Gilson.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County, Docket No. FM-18-596-13.

Eric Addeo, appellant pro se.

Shimalla, Wechsler, Lepp & D'Onofrio, L.L.P., attorneys for respondent (Sarah M. Mahony, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Eric Addeo appeals from a provision of a September 29, 2014 order granting plaintiff Deanna Tomasso-Addeo attorney's fees of $3445, incurred in filing a post-divorce judgment motion to enforce her rights under the parties' marital settlement agreement. We affirm.

The parties married in 1994, and divorced in 2013. One child was born of the marriage. The parties' marital settlement agreement (MSA), incorporated in their dual final judgment of divorce, required defendant to pay $500 per month in child support and $500 per month in alimony.

Several months after the divorce, plaintiff filed a motion in aid of litigant's rights to enforce various provisions of the MSA, including defendant's support obligations. Plaintiff also sought an award of counsel fees.

On September 26, 2014, the Family Part conducted oral argument and entered an order that, in relevant part, awarded plaintiff $3445 in counsel fees. The court found defendant in violation of litigant's rights for failing to comply with his support obligations. The court determined that defendant had historically failed to pay his support obligations in a timely manner and consistently owed arrears. Defendant had also failed to communicate with plaintiff and owed her other costs. The judge explained his rulings, including his reasons for awarding plaintiff counsel fees, in a comprehensive written statement of reasons.

An award of counsel fees in matrimonial matters rests within the sound discretion of the Family Part judge. See N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23; R. 5:3-5(c). We will disturb a counsel fee award "only on the 'rarest occasion,' and then only because of clear abuse of discretion." Barr v. Barr, 418 N.J. Super. 18, 46 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Strahan v. Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. 298, 317 (App. Div. 2008)).

On appeal, defendant contends that the Family Part judge failed to consider that he had brought his arrears current by the time the motion was heard. The judge, however, did consider the status of the arrears. The judge reviewed the probation records and saw that defendant had a history of paying late. Based on that poor payment history and other considerations, the judge found an award of attorney fees was appropriate. We discern no abuse of discretion in the award of counsel fees. The judge appropriately considered the standards set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 and Rule 5:3-5(c) in evaluating the request for counsel fees. The judge concluded that the counsel fee award was the result of defendant's failure to comply with his support obligations and his unwillingness to communicate with plaintiff.

Defendant also argues the judge erred by not considering his current financial circumstances. He acknowledges, however, that he had not submitted updated financial information. Thus, the judge examined the parties' financial circumstances reflected in the record and the costs incurred by plaintiff in bringing the enforcement motion. Accordingly, the judge properly considered the factual record on the motion. All the judge's factual findings are adequately supported by the record.

Affirmed.