WILLIAM T. FOX v. DOROTHY J. FOX

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

WILLIAM T. FOX,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DOROTHY J. FOX, n/k/a

DOROTHY J. FOX LAMURAGLIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________

April 28, 2014

Submitted March 26, 2014 Decided

Before Judges Waugh and Accurso.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FM-02-2269-04.

Dorothy J. Fox Lamuraglia, appellant pro se.

Robert W. Mayer, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Dorothy Fox Lamuraglia appeals the Family Part's denial of her motion to terminate child support payments to plaintiff William Fox, as well as the denial of her motion for reconsideration. We reverse and remand for further consideration.

Lamuraglia sought to terminate her child-support obligation based on the fact that the supported child was about to start college. Despite the provisions of Rule 5:5-4(a) ("[T]he court shall ordinarily grant requests for oral argument on substantive and non-routine discovery motions . . . . "), the motion judge decided the motion on the papers.

The summary explanation1 contained in the order is that Lamuraglia did not present a prima facie case of changed circumstances under Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 151 (1980). However, as we explained in Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109, 113 (App. Div. 2012), a supported child's attendance at college is a changed circumstance that permits a reexamination of child support. Nevertheless, "there is no presumption that a child's required financial support lessens because he or she attends college" and "each case must turn on its own facts." Ibid. In addition, it appears that Lamuraglia's most recent support obligation, established by the Family Part's June 10, 2011 order, was based on a guidelines calculation. The child support guidelines are not generally applicable in calculating support for an unemancipated college student. Id. at 119.

Consequently, we reverse the orders on appeal and remand to the Family Part for further consideration consistent with this opinion, which shall include oral argument and, if required, a hearing to establish any disputed facts. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Reversed and remanded.

1 Although technically compliant with Rule 1:7-4, the summary explanation of reasons is not helpful on appeal.