ANDREW FINE v. CATHY J. FINE

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2079-04T5

ANDREW FINE,

Defendant-Appellant,

v.

CATHY J. FINE,

Plaintiff-Respondent.

________________________________________________

 

Submitted December 12, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges C.S. Fisher and Yannotti.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FM-07-2340-99.

Andrew Fine, appellant pro se.

Cathy Fine, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

Following a trial, the parties' twenty-one year marriage, which produced two children, was dissolved by way of the entry of a judgment of divorce on May 29, 2001. In setting alimony and child support, the judge then assigned to the matter found that defendant Andrew Fine was earning income at the rate of $168,000 per year. He also imputed to plaintiff Cathy Fine an annual income of $30,000. Based upon these findings, as well as other facts and circumstances, the judge ordered that defendant pay to plaintiff $4,500 per month until September 1, 2001, and thereafter $3,800 per month in permanent alimony. The judge also directed that defendant pay plaintiff $1,732.90 per month in child support.

Asserting substantial changes in his health and employment, defendant moved for a downward modification of the support awards. On October 31, 2001, after hearing argument on this and other motions, the judge temporarily reduced defendant's monthly alimony obligation from $3,800 to $1,000. The judge also permitted the parties to engage in discovery.

After a plenary hearing that was conducted on January 7, 2004 and May 24, 2004, Judge Richard C. Camp issued a written decision on October 6, 2004, wherein he determined that: (1) defendant should be obligated to pay $1,200 per month in permanent alimony based upon defendant's actual and imputed income of $80,000 per year and plaintiff's imputed income of $33,000 per year; (2) plaintiff was entitled to $16,391.88 in support arrears; (3) defendant was required to pay $500 per month until the arrears were satisfied; (4) plaintiff was entitled to the tax exemption on both children; (5) plaintiff was entitled to an award of counsel fees; and (6) the parties were obligated to equally share in the cost of the court-appointed forensic accountant. These determinations were memorialized in an order entered on October 20, 2004.

Defendant appealed, raising the following arguments for our consideration:

I. THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED ERROR IN IMPUTING TO DEFENDANT AN ANNUAL INCOME OF $80,000 ($6,666.67 PER MONTH).

II. THE ALIMONY AND SUPPORT PAYMENTS AS ORDERED BY THE LOWER COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE RETROACTIVE TO OCTOBER 1, 2001 ERASING ANY ARREARS OWED TO PLAINTIFF.

III. PLAINTIFF HAS MADE LITTLE EFFORT TO MAXIMIZE HER INCOME SINCE DEFENDANT LOST HIS JOB IN AUGUST 2001.

IV. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FEES UPON THE DEFENDANT BASED ON ITS ERRONEOUS FINDING OF DEFENDANT'S LACK OF GOOD FAITH IN MAKING DISCLOSURES.

V. THE PARTIES SHOULD NOT MAKE EQUAL PAYMENTS ON THE COST OF THE FORENSIC ACCOUN[T]ANT AFTER HE CORRECTS HIS BILL.

VI. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE THE PARTIES SHALL TAKE ONE SON EACH AS A TAX EXEMPTION.

 
Having carefully examined the record, we conclude that all these arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2079-04T5

December 20, 2005