DANIELLE BENNETT v. ROBERT ALVIGGI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

DANIELLE BENNETT, f/k/a

DANIELLE BERGAMO-ALVIGGI,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ROBERT ALVIGGI,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

December 14, 2015

Submitted November 10, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Rothstadt and Currier.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FM-14-1425-06.

Ashton E. Thomas, attorney for appellant.

Danielle Bennett, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Robert Alviggi appeals two October 24, 2014 orders entered by the family part judge as to his responsibility for health insurance costs for the parties' minor son. Because we find the orders to be inconsistent and not responsive to the parties' applications, we reverse and remand the matter to the trial judge for further findings.

Alviggi and plaintiff Danielle Bennett were divorced in 2006. The marital settlement agreement contained an agreed-upon child support figure that Alviggi would pay to Bennett. The agreement also stated that Alviggi would provide medical insurance for their son. In 2009, in response to an unopposed motion made by Bennett, the judge ordered that Alviggi would pay $507.50 per month in addition to his child support obligation to Bennett for health insurance for the child.1

At some point, however, Alviggi began providing health insurance for the child and presented proof of insurance for the years 2012 and 2013. This was reflected in a consent order entered into by the parties in March 2013, which gave Alviggi a credit of $7105.98 since he had been paying for health insurance, but was still being charged the additional $507.57 per month in his child support obligation. In a second consent order, entered in January 2014, the parties agreed that Alviggi would have an additional credit of $3042 for having providing health insurance through 2013. The order further stated: "As of January 1, 2014 [Bennett] will secure health insurance for [our] son . . . [Alviggi] will continue to pay his full monthly child support obligation which includes health insurance."

Several months later, Alviggi filed a motion requesting both a reimbursement for his continued $507.50 monthly medical insurance payments, as well as a complete termination of those payments. The family court judge denied the application stating that Alviggi had not presented any financial documents to support the modification.

Alviggi filed a similar application thereafter, again contesting the amount of arrears due by him to Bennett regarding the health insurance payments and to terminate any future payment for medical insurance. He argued that there had never been a basis for the amount of the medical insurance reimbursement he had been charged in the five years since it had been set. He also stated that Bennett was remarried and the parties' child was now covered under her new husband's family health insurance policy, and there were still no proofs as to the cost to Bennett for insurance just for their son. Alviggi again sought credits for the monies he had paid for health insurance reimbursement to Bennett.

The judge denied Alviggi's motion stating, in the October 24, 2014 order, that Bennett should present evidence of her cost for medical insurance so that amount could be calculated in the future. In the order generated that same day in response to Bennett's cross-motion, the judge ordered Alviggi to continue reimbursing Bennett for the cost of health insurance, and required her to provide proof of payment of health insurance coverage for the child to Alviggi. In the statement of reasons accompanying the order, the judge stated he was enforcing the provision of the parties' marital settlement agreement from eight years earlier, which required Alviggi to provide health insurance for their son, despite the consent order entered ten months earlier reflecting that Bennett had obtained insurance for their son. The orders entered that day, however, are not consistent with that ruling as they do not require Alviggi to provide the insurance, rather they require Bennett to provide proof of insurance and for Alviggi to reimburse her.

We recognize that the "scope of appellate review of a trial court's fact-finding function is limited. The general rule is that findings by the trial court are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998). The findings here, however, lack sufficient support to merit our deference. Alviggi provided health insurance to the parties' son for some period of time, while also being charged a monthly amount in his child support obligation towards the cost of health insurance. The parties themselves agreed that this was the situation as reflected in the two consent orders. We find that since the health insurance obligation had been set five years earlier, and there had been no documentation provided by Bennett to support that specific insurance obligation figure, in conjunction with Alviggi's proofs that he, in fact, was providing medical insurance, the trial judge's findings failed to resolve questions regarding appropriate credits and obligations for health insurance.

We, therefore, remand the matter for consideration of the proofs provided by both parties, and a determination of when each party was providing health insurance and the cost of the insurance. Accordingly, we reverse the portions of the orders referencing health insurance and direct the judge to determine past credits to the parties and the setting of future reimbursements if appropriate.

Reversed and remanded for findings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.

1 It is not known what the health insurance circumstances were at that time as we only have a copy of the referenced order.