MARSHA L. OLIAN v. DAVID I. OLIAN

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2990-07T22990-07T2

MARSHA L. OLIAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DAVID I. OLIAN,

Defendant-Respondent.

_____________________________________

 

Submitted December 2, 2008 - Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Gilroy.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County,

Docket No. FM-04-0687-95.

Marsha L. Olian, appellant pro se.

Law Office of Edward Fradkin, attorneys

for respondent (Edward Fradkin, of counsel;

MaryBeth Hershkowitz, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Marsha L. Olian appeals from the order of the Family Part denying her motion seeking to compel defendant David I. Olian to reimburse funds he withdrew from the accounts of the parties' children established under the Uniform Gift to Minor Act (UGMA), N.J.S.A. 46:38-13. We affirm.

The parties were married on April 17, 1977, and divorced on September 24, 1997. They had two children, Matthew born in 1983, and Jesse, born in 1987. Both of their sons were over the age of eighteen at the time this matter came before the trial court. We affirmed a previous appeal taken by defendant concerning college education expenses for Matthew. Olian v. Olian, Docket No. A-0060-02, (App. Div. Nov. 12, 2003). We thus incorporate by reference the procedural history described therein.

The central issue before us now concerns plaintiff's legal standing to contest defendant's alleged withdrawals of funds from these UGMA accounts. By the time this issue came before the trial court: (1) Matthew had been declared emancipated; and (2) Jesse was twenty years old, and had taken a leave of absence from college.

Acting on plaintiff's application, the court ordered defendant to provide an accounting of the two UGMA accounts, and to provide evidence that defendant acted on Jesse's behalf when he withdrew certain funds from his account. The court also granted defendant's motion suspending his child support obligation for Jesse. Both orders were entered by the court on August 24, 2007.

In November 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the August 24, 2007 order. Plaintiff again sought to be named custodian of Jesse's UMGA account, and for an order directing defendant to repay any funds he may have withdrawn from their sons' accounts. Defendant cross-moved seeking counsel fees.

At the time these motions came before the court, Jesse had signed two documents, one on May 11, 2005, and the other on February 27, 2006, authorizing defendant to utilize the funds contained in his account to pay for his college expenses. Matthew had issued a similar authorization. Against this backdrop, Judge Solomon held that plaintiff did not have standing to bring these motions. Both of the children were adults, and had authorized defendant to use these funds in this fashion.

We agree with Judge Solomon. Plaintiff's reliance on Cohen v. Cohen, 258 N.J. Super. 24, (App. Div.), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 596 (1992), is misplaced. In Cohen, the application for a surcharge against the custodian of the account was brought by the parent on behalf of the dependent child, and was joined by the child herself. Id. at 27.

Here, we discern no basis to interfere with Judge Solomon's decision. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974). The material facts are undisputed. Given the children's majority, plaintiff does not have the legal capacity to question how the UMGA funds are used. We thus affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Solomon on January 11, 2008.

 
Affirmed.

The UGMA was repealed in 2007 by the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, N.J.S.A. 46:38A-1 to -57.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-2990-07T2

June 2, 2009