S.S. v. N.S.
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0292-17T3
S.S.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
N.S.,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Submitted September 21, 2018 – Decided November 20, 2018
Before Judges Simonelli and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County,
Docket No. FM-18-0162-10.
Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, PA, attorneys for
appellant (Jeralyn L. Lawrence, on the briefs).
Genova Burns LLC, attorneys for respondent (Kathleen
Barnett Einhorn and Maria R. Fruci, of counsel and on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant N.S.1 appeals from that part of the August 22, 2017 Family Part
order, which denied her motion to vacate a consent order, increase plaintiff S.S.'s
child support obligation, compel plaintiff to pay retroactive child support, and
for counsel fees and costs. We affirm.
The parties were married in 1995, and have two children. On July 9, 2009,
they executed a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA), which was incorporated
into their October 5, 2009 final judgment of divorce. The MSA required
plaintiff to pay defendant alimony of $12,000 per month for eight years, $8000
per month for four years, and $3000 per month for child support. Child support
was calculated on plaintiff's average earnings as a partner in an anesthesiology
practice of $517,000 per year for the past three years and defendant's imputed
income of $35,000 per year.
The MSA required plaintiff to maintain medical coverage for the children,
pay two-thirds of the children's unreimbursed medical expenses, and pay two-
thirds of their "extracurricular lessons, sports activities, summer camps, and
SAT preparatory classes." The MSA also provided that "[c]hild support shall
1
Because we quote and discuss income and expense information from the
excluded record, we use initials to maintain confidentiality. See R. 1:38-3(d)(1).
A-0292-17T3
2
be reviewed and recalculated every three years from the date of the execution of
[the MSA] and when alimony terminates unless the parties agree otherwise."
In 2012, defendant filed a post-judgment motion to compel plaintiff to pay
his share of the children's summer camp, among other things. In a May 7, 2012
order, the motion judge granted the motion and ordered plaintiff to provide to
defendant three years of his financial documents and proof of income for the
year 2012. The judge also ordered both parties to exchange their tax returns,
W-2 statements and Form 1099 for 2009, 2010, and 2011. The record does not
indicate that plaintiff failed to comply with this order.
In January 2013, plaintiff advised defendant that his annual income had
significantly decreased since their divorce due to various factors, making it
nearly impossible for him to meet his alimony and child support obligations. As
required by the MSA, plaintiff requested that the parties engage in mediation.
Prior to the mediation, plaintiff provided to defendant his federal tax return and
Schedule K-1 for the years 2010, 2011, and 2012, his 2013 gross earnings
statement as of March 15, 2013, and various documents from his employer
related to his income. According to plaintiff's tax returns, his annual gross
income was $500,910 for 2010; $484,605 for 2011; $209,238 for 2012; and
$98,547.99 as of March 15, 2013.
A-0292-17T3
3
Following mediation, on March 17, 2014, the parties executed a consent
order, which provided as follows:
Effective upon execution by the parties of this [CO],
the [p]laintiff's child support obligation shall be
reduced from $3,000 per month to $2,500 per month.
This is based on the [p]laintiff's average income of
$460,000 per year and the [d]efendant's current income
of $57,000 per year, and taking into consideration the
ongoing alimony payment of $144,000 per year from
[p]laintiff to [d]efendant. Which payment shall
continue to be paid in accord with the [MSA]. Attached
are child support guideline worksheets, which indicate
a child support obligation for [p]laintiff in the amount
of $340 per week. The parties acknowledge this is an
above guideline case and have agreed upon the child
support number taking into consideration all of their
circumstances. Pursuant to the parties' MSA, child
support may be renegotiated every three years.
The consent order also provided that defendant would now be "solely
responsible for the children's camp, work-related childcare, extracurricular
activities, sports, and tutors." The consent order did not change plaintiff's
responsibility to provide the children's medical coverage, but reduced his
contribution to the children's unreimbursed medical expenses to sixty percent.
The consent order did not provide that the reduction in plaintiff's child support
obligation was permanent. To the contrary, the consent order provided:
"Nothing contained herein shall eliminate said three year review/renegotiation
provision of the parties' MSA. In the event the [p]laintiff seeks to have his
A-0292-17T3
4
alimony obligation reviewed, the child support obligation and child related
expense obligation of the [p]laintiff shall be reviewed."
In March 2017, defendant asked plaintiff to attend mediation to address
their financial circumstances and the children's increased needs. Regarding his
financial circumstances, plaintiff provided to defendant his Schedule K-1 for
2014, 2015, and 2016. Defendant did not have an accountant evaluate those
documents. Instead, she concluded from her review of the documents that
plaintiff's income was $607,986 for 2014; $573,492 for 2015; and $631,196 for
2016. Plaintiff countered that defendant misinterpreted his Schedule K-1s.
Mediation was unsuccessful. In May 2017, defendant filed a motion to
vacate the consent order, claiming that before and during the 2014 mediation,
plaintiff fraudulently misrepresented his annual income, fraudulently
misrepresented that his anticipated annual income would never rise above
$460,000, and failed to provide complete and accurate financial disclosures.
Defendant also sought child support arrears, an increase in child support to
$9315 per month, and counsel fees and costs. Apparently realizing she had
misinterpreted plaintiff's Schedule K-1 for 2014, 2015, and 2016, defendant now
argued that based on the method used by plaintiff's accountant, plaintiff's actual
income was $477,629 for 2014; $462,798 for 2015; and $524,822 for 2016, for
A-0292-17T3
5
a three-year average of $488,467.66, which was $28,467.66 in excess of
$460,000 per year. Plaintiff filed a motion to reduce his child support
obligation. At the time of these filings, defendant's annual income had increased
to $96,000.
In an August 22, 2017 written opinion, Judge Peter J. Tober denied
defendant's motion to vacate the consent order. The judge rejected defendant's
claim that plaintiff fraudulently misrepresented his annual income before and
during the 2014 mediation, finding as follows:
By the time the parties['] 2014 settlement negotiations
commenced, [d]efendant had access to several years of
[p]laintiff's financial disclosures. She had actual
knowledge of [p]laintiff's average annual earnings, his
Schedule K-1s and claimed deductions, and any other
income dating back to 2009 and through 2012.
Arguably, [d]efendant lacked only [p]laintiff's 2013
financial disclosures. Plaintiff's numerous financial
disclosures necessarily evidenced a consistent decrease
in annual income preceding the 2014 negotiations in the
same manner his disclosures preceding the 2009
divorce suggested that a sum of $517,000 accurately
represented [p]laintiff's average annual income. In this
instance, the facts underlying the parties' dispute do not
parallel those in Von Pein [v. Von Pein, 268 N.J. Super.
7 (App. Div. 1993)] wherein the [c]ourt determined that
the husband fraudulently hid marital assets in an effort
to diminish [the wife's] share of equitable distribution.
....
A-0292-17T3
6
The [c]ourt is satisfied that [d]efendant
knowingly and voluntarily entered in the March 17,
2014 [c]onsent [o]rder upon her receipt of objectively
verifiable financial disclosures which corroborated
[p]laintiff's representations regarding the extent of his
available income.
The judge also rejected defendant's claim that plaintiff fraudulently
misrepresented his anticipated future earnings, finding as follows:
The [c]ourt does not find that [p]laintiff's 2014, 2015,
and 2016 Schedule K-1s suggest, let alone evidence,
[p]laintiff consistently earned an income nearly
$200,000 in excess of the $460,000 figure utilized in
the March 17, 2014 [c]onsent order, notwithstanding
[d]efendant's arguments to the contrary. The shift in
[d]efendant's position, from the arguments presented in
her moving papers to her apparent concession in her
reply papers, regarding the accurate interpretation of
[p]laintiff's 2014, 2015, and 2016 Schedule K-1s
underscores [p]laintiff's position that he informed
[d]efendant in good faith of what he anticipated he
would earn in the years following the 2014
negotiations.
The judge disagreed that plaintiff decreased his income through deductions,
found the deductions for 2015 and 2016 were permissible, and determined
plaintiff's current earnings comported with his representations during the 2014
mediation. The judge enforced the consent order, finding its terms were just and
accepted voluntarily by both parties.
A-0292-17T3
7
Judge Tober denied defendant's request to increase child support, granted
plaintiff's request to decrease child support, and decreased child support to
$2,221.20. The judge carefully reviewed the applicable law and evidence
presented and did not find the children's needs had increased beyond what they
were at the time of the consent order.
Judge Tober also carefully reviewed the parties' respective past and
present earnings and financial disclosures, did not find credible defendant's
claim of financial hardship and monthly deficit, and found "[d]efendant's
lifestyle had not been affected in any meaningful capacity either following the
2009 divorce or the March 17, 2014 [c]onsent [o]rder." The judge was satisfied
that "[d]efendant's financial circumstances have steadily improved while
plaintiff's have either remained consistent or decreased from what they were at
the time of the March 17, 2014 [c]onsent [o]rder." The judge emphasized that:
[defendant] continued to live a lifestyle comparable to,
if not exceeding, the parties' former marital lifestyle
from 2014 through the filing date of her current
application. Defendant's conduct does not suggest
financial hardship and her instant application
seemingly attempts to compensate for the downward
alimony modification by artificially inflating child
support.
Defendant's requested child support increase
does not stem from the children's increased needs, but
rather [d]efendant's apparent realization that her
A-0292-17T3
8
monthly alimony would decrease[] by $4,000 per
month effective July 15, 2017. The purpose of child
support, however, is to benefit children, not to protect
or support either parent.
Lastly, Judge Tober denied defendant's request for counsel fees. The
judge found defendant was capable of paying their counsel fees without
contribution from plaintiff, and concluded as follows:
Defendant's instant application advanced meritless
arguments in an effort to overcome the financial
impact of the automatic alimony decrease established
by the terms of the parties' 2009 MSA. The [c]ourt
finds [d]efendant sought to inflate improperly her
receipt of monthly child support by requesting a sum,
which would practically ameliorate any alimony
decrease. The [c]ourt does not find that [d]efendant's
allegations of fraud were substantiated or objectively
reasonable. Her arguments regarding [p]laintiff's
annual income were inconsistent and [d]efendant
seemingly understood that her positon was
unsupported by proper reading of [plaintiff's] Schedule
K-1s.
....
The [c]ourt therefore cannot find that [d]efendant's
application supported a finding that she believed the
[p]laintiff fraudulently induced her assent to the March
17, 2014 [c]onsent [o]rder.
On appeal, defendant contends Judge Tober erred in failing to vacate the
consent order, increase child support, compel plaintiff to pay retroactive child
support, and award her counsel fees and costs. In the alternative, defendant
A-0292-17T3
9
contends the judge erred in failing to hold a plenary hearing and permit further
discovery to determine the enforceability of the consent order and an
appropriate retroactive child support award.
"In our review of a Family Part judge's motion order, we defer to factual
findings 'supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence' in the record."
Landers v. Landers, 444 N.J. Super. 315, 319 (App. Div. 2016) (quoting Gnall
v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414, 428 (2015)). "Reversal is warranted when we conclude
a mistake must have been made because the trial court's factual findings are
'manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and
reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice. . . .'" Ibid.
(quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484
(1974)). "However, when reviewing legal conclusions, our obligation is
different; '[to] the extent that the trial court's decision constitutes a legal
determination, we review it de novo.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting
D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168, 182 (2013)).
We have considered defendant's contentions in light of the record and
applicable legal principles and conclude they are without sufficient merit to
warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm
substantially for the reasons Judge Tober expressed in his comprehensive and
A-0292-17T3
10
cogent written opinion. The record amply supports the judge's factual findings
and his conclusions are unassailable.
Affirmed.
A-0292-17T3
11
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
