DORENA CALBAZANA v. EVRON COOPER, JR
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-2162-18T1
DORENA CALBAZANA,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
EVRON COOPER, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Submitted September 16, 2019 – Decided October 31, 2019
Before Judges Rothstadt and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County,
Docket No. FM-04-1249-13.
Newman & Ingemi, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Scott
J. Newman, on the briefs).
Dorena Calbazana, respondent pro se.
PER CURIAM
This is an appeal of a post-judgment order entered in the Family Part on
December 21, 2108, denying defendant Evron Cooper, Jr.'s motion seeking
reconsideration of a prior order entered on October 26, 2018. The October order
compelled defendant to contribute to the college expenses of the parties' son.
Defendant also challenges the provision in the December 21, 2018 order that
granted plaintiff Dorena Calbazana's cross-motion for the counsel fees incurred
in defending the motion for reconsideration. We affirm, substantially for the
reasons set forth in Judge Yolanda C. Rodriguez's thorough oral decision as
placed on the record on December 21, 2018. We add only the following
comments.
We discern the following facts from the record. Plaintiff and defendant
were married on February 14, 1998. The parties have one child, a son. On
January 6, 2003, a final judgment of divorce was entered, incorporating by
reference a property settlement agreement (PSA) entered by and between the
parties. Concerning anticipated college costs, the PSA specified that if their son
continues schooling beyond high school and is enrolled
in college on a full time basis at the time of his high
school graduation, the parties shall renegotiate
responsibility for payment of college expenses and/or
continuation of support while the child attends college.
If the parties cannot agree on payments for child
support and/or college expenses while [the] child
attends college, either party may apply to a Court of
competent jurisdiction for determination of the
disagreement. The parties' share of the college
expenses should not be calculated until after utilizing
all available scholarships, grants and loans. The
A-2162-18T1
2
College shall be selected by the child, with the
agreement of both parents, giving due consideration to
the financial ability of both parties to pay the costs.
Upon the child's emancipation as defined in paragraph
Sixth (C), neither party shall have any further
obligation to contribute toward college expenses.1 2
The son began attending Camden Community College in fall 2016. He
incurred a total cost of $10,732 for his attendance at the two-year school.
Thereafter, he began attending Rutgers University in fall 2018, electing to
commute to school from home. The cost of attendance during the fall 2018
semester was $7,873.
On September 19, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant to
contribute to his son's past and future college costs.3 After a hearing at which
1 On June 25, 2013, a different Family Part judge, after interviewing the parties'
son in camera, entered an order finding, inter alia, that the son was "not
interested in developing a relationship with [defendant], his father."
2 On June 29, 2016, January 3, 2017, and August 25, 2018 defendant filed
motions to emancipate his son and terminate his child support obligation, which
were all denied by the trial court. On February 15, 2017 and November 16,
2017, defendant filed motions to emancipate the child and decrease and/or
terminate his child support obligations, and for reimbursement of child support
paid from August 8, 2016 through February 2017. These applications were
likewise denied.
3
Defendant filed a cross-motion to emancipate his son and terminate child his
child support obligations. The judge's October 21, 2018 order denied the cross -
motion. Although defendant argued on the motion for reconsideration that the
A-2162-18T1
3
defendant testified,4 the court concluded that defendant should pay half of the
son's cost of having attended Camden County Community College, and going
forward, a 68 per cent pro rata share of the son's cost of attending Rutgers
University.5 Judge Rodriguez made her determination after conducting a
thorough review of the factors enunciated in Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529
(1982).
Thereafter, defendant sought reconsideration of the judge's decision. On
December 21, 2018, Judge Rodriguez entered an order denying defendant's
motion for reconsideration and granting plaintiff's cross-motion for an award of
attorney's fees. 6 In that regard, Judge Rodriguez "[did] not find that anything
new that was unavailable at the motion date of October was pointed out to the
court, nor any new cases, or anything that has been pointed out that the [c]ourt
overlooked last time in rendering its decision." In addition, based on her
judge erred in denying the application on cross-motion, on appeal he appears to
have abandoned that argument, so we find it unnecessary to address it.
4
Plaintiff's counsel argued on her behalf, and she did not testify.
5
Defendant's salary at the time of the hearing was approximately $86,000 and
plaintiff's salary was approximately $39,000.
6 At the December 21, 2018 hearing, defendant testified telephonically, and
plaintiff's counsel argued on her behalf.
A-2162-18T1
4
determination that "this is essentially the same motion the second time," the
judge found that an award of counsel fees was appropriate. Referencing the
factors set forth in Rule 5:3-5, the judge found that (1) defendant's position was
not reasonable or in good faith, as it was essentially a rehash of his arguments
on the initial motion, "as well as a number of these issues with respect to seeking
a modification of child support [which have] been denied a number of times
before;" (2) plaintiff obtained a favorable result ; (3) the financial circumstances
of the parties demonstrated that plaintiff, who earned roughly half of what
defendant earned, was "not a wealthy individual and for her to continue to incur
the expense of counsel to deal with similar motions is not appropriate;" and (4)
based on her review of the fee certification, the judge found the fees were
reasonable. Accordingly, the judge ordered that defendant pay $1,955 in
attorney's fees. This appeal ensued.
On appeal, defendant argues that the judge abused her discretion in
denying his motion for reconsideration. Specifically, defendant contends that
Judge Rodriguez incorrectly applied the first and eleventh Newburgh factors and
failed to consider the fourth and ninth factors. Defendant further contends that
Judge Rodriguez abused her discretion by ordering him to pay for half the cost
of his son's first two years of college "because the request for payment was not
A-2162-18T1
5
made prior" to his son's enrollment in Camden County Community College.
Finally, defendant contends the judge erred in awarding plaintiff counsel fees.
We review denials of motions for reconsideration for abuse of discretion.
Guido v. Duane Morris L.L.P., 202 N.J. 79, 87 (2010). Motions for
reconsideration "shall state with specificity the basis on which [they are] made,
including a statement of the matters or controlling decisions which counsel
believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has erred[.]" R. 4:49-2.
Reconsideration should be utilized only for those cases
which fall into that narrow corridor in which either 1)
the Court has expressed its decision based upon a
palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious
that the Court either did not consider, or failed to
appreciate the significance of probative, competent
evidence . . . .
[Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App.
Div. 1996) (quoting D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super.
392, 401-02 (Ch. Div. 1990)).]
With this framework in mind, we now turn to defendant's contentions
concerning Judge Rodriguez's application of the Newburgh factors. In
Newburgh, the Court set forth twelve non-exhaustive factors in considering what
portion of college expenses a child may reasonably demand of a non-custodial
parent:
(1) whether the parent, if still living with the child,
would have contributed toward the costs of the
A-2162-18T1
6
requested higher education; (2) the effect of the
background, values and goals of the parent on the
reasonableness of the expectation of the child for higher
education; (3) the amount of the contribution sought by
the child for the cost of higher education; (4) the ability
of the parent to pay that cost; (5) the relationship of the
requested contribution to the kind of school or course
of study sought by the child; (6) the financial resources
of both parents; (7) the commitment to and aptitude of
the child for the requested education; (8) the financial
resources of the child, including assets owned
individually or held in custodianship or trust; (9) the
ability of the child to earn income during the school
year or on vacation; (10) the availability of financial aid
in the form of college grants and loans; (11) the child's
relationship to the paying parent, including mutual
affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to
parental advice and guidance; and (12) the relationship
of the education requested to any prior training and to
the overall long-range goals of the child.
[Newburgh, 88 N.J. at 545.]
See also Gotlib v. Gotlib, 399 N.J. Super. 295, 309 (2008).
Subsequently, an amendment to the child-support statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-
23(a), codified this list of factors. Kiken v. Kiken, 149 N.J. 441, 449-50 (1997).
"Thus, a trial court should balance the statutory criteria of N.J.S.A. 2A:34- -23(a)
and the Newburgh factors, as well as any other relevant circumstances, to reach
a fair and just decision whether and, if so, in what amount, a parent or parents
must contribute to a child's educational expenses." Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535,
543 (2006).
A-2162-18T1
7
In deciding the initial October 2018 motion, Judge Rodriguez expressly
considered and appropriately weighed factors one, four, nine and eleven, among
others, to reach a fair and just decision. As to the first factor, the judge
considered the parties' own educational backgrounds and the provision in their
PSA, which contemplated that a court would intervene and make a determination
if the parties could not agree on a choice of college or their relative
contributions, which is exactly what happened in this case.
Likewise, we reject defendant's argument that the judge incorrectly
applied factor number eleven. The judge acknowledged that defendant and his
son do not have a good relationship, but noted that
it's not the worst scenario I've ever seen or read. In fact,
there is some relationship. And as I said, I certainly
hope it will be strengthened between the son and his
father, but there are situations in case where there have
been some very difficult and nasty comments said
between the child and the parent. That's not the case
here. But even if that were the case, I'm not saying that
under the law that means that a parent can't – or can't
be ordered to contribute to its college.
We discern no error in that finding. See Gac, 186 N.J. at 546 (holding
"[a] relationship between a non-custodial parent and a child is not required for
the custodial parent or the child to" request assistance for college expenses).
A-2162-18T1
8
Also belied by the record is defendant's contention that the judge on the
original motion failed to consider factor number four concerning defendant's
ability to pay the costs for his son's college education. To the contrary, Judge
Rodriguez made detailed findings concerning the parties' relative salaries and
she also considered defendant's other obligations, including his obligation to pay
his own student loans, before concluding that defendant was capable of making
a pro rata contribution. As to factor number nine, the judge found that the child
had successfully availed himself of grants and loans, and that he also held a part-
time job.
Similarly without merit is defendant's argument that the judge erred in
requiring him to pay half of his son's past-incurred Camden County Community
College expenses. Defendant argues that the judge overlooked the Supreme
Court's decision in Gac holding that failure to request contribution before a
child's enrollment in college "will weigh heavily against the grant of a future
application." 186 N.J. at 546-47. Again, defendant's assertion is belied by the
record.
In that regard, Judge Rodriguez on the original motion found that the facts
and circumstances of this case do not invoke the concerns expressed by the
Supreme Court in Gac. The judge noted that unlike the facts in Gac,
A-2162-18T1
9
Your son didn't attend a high priced college or
university, but rather, as it's been pointed out and I
think there's no dispute, he's approached this in the
most economical way possible, which is two years of
community college, transfer, then to a four-year
institution.
And you, sir, I believe you did something like that as
well.
So while in a perfect world, both parents sitting down
with the child, going through maybe a couple of
brochures and options, I find that that's certainly more
of the situation – in other words, not permitting going
back, and having a parent pay tuition in the past is more
of a situation, such as Gac v. Gac, where the child goes
to some really expensive school and the noncustodial
parent says, wait a minute, nobody even checked with
me, that's not fair, I would have recommended that they
go to community college. Well, that's where we are.
Your son did select the most economical way to get his
advanced degree.
In short, we conclude the judge did not abuse her discretion in denying
defendant's motion for reconsideration because defendant made no showing that
the judge expressed her decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational
basis, nor did he point to probative, competent evidence that the judge failed to
consider or appreciate. See Cummings, 295 N.J. Super. at 384 (citation
omitted).
We likewise conclude the judge did not err in awarding plaintiff attorney's
fees. Judge Rodriguez made reference to the applicable factors set forth in Rule
A-2162-18T1
10
5:3-5,7 finding that (1) defendant's position was not reasonable or in good faith,
as it was essentially a rehash of his arguments on the initial motion; (2) plaintiff
prevailed; (3) the financial circumstances of the parties demonstrated that
plaintiff, who earned roughly half of what defendant earned, was "not a wealthy
individual and for her to continue to incur the expense of counsel to deal with
similar motions is not appropriate;" and (4) based on her review of the fee
certification, the judge found the $1,955 fee was reasonable. We conclude the
judge's findings are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record and
that her award of attorney's fees was entirely within the bounds of her discretion.
7 Rule 5:3-5(c) sets forth the following nine factors to guide the court's
discretion in awarding counsel's fees in a Family Part action:
(1) the financial circumstances of the parties; (2) the
ability of the parties to pay their own fees or to
contribute to the fees of the other party; (3) the
reasonableness and good faith of the positions
advanced by the parties; (4) the extent of the fees
incurred by both parties; (5) any fees previously
awarded; (6) the amount of fees previously paid to
counsel by each party; (7) the results obtained; (8) the
degree to which fees were incurred to enforce existing
orders to compel discovery; and (9) any other factor
bearing on the fairness of an award.
A-2162-18T1
11
To the extent that we have not specifically addressed any of defendant's
remaining arguments, we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-2162-18T1
12
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.
