Do Child Support and Tuition Continue Through Grad School?

Child Support laws in New Jersey changed effective February 1, 2017. Included among the changes was the presumption of emancipation at the age of 23. In light of then upcoming changes in the child support laws, a New Jersey Superior Court judge struggled, in December, with whether a non-custodial father should be required to pay for his child’s graduate education. In J.C. v. A.C., Ocean County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Jones considered whether A.S., the father of A.A.C. and K.C. , should be required to pay for the graduate education of A.A.C. Although the N.J. Supreme Court, in Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982), set forth the obligation for divorce parents to help pay for their child’s education, graduate school was not addressed in Newburgh. The parties’ settlement agreement, entered into at the time of their divorce, included that they would share equally the cost of their children’s college education but included no provision for graduate school. The Judge reasoned that, with her bachelor’s degree in accounting, A.C.C. could support herself while pursuing her master’s degree, as many others do. He determined that the intent of the legislature in revising the statute was to limit the obligations of noncustodial parents unless there was a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Although application could be made, the judge did not find that it must be granted. If you are seeking or disputing contributions toward your child’s education or other support, there are multiple factors which must be considered and it is within your best interests to consult with an experienced divorce attorney prior to taking action. For more information regarding child support, divorce, post-judgment modifications or other family law matters visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Post-Judgment Action To Enforce PSA Over College Expenses

Daley v. Daley, is a post-judgment matrimonial matter in which the Defendant appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order that granted the Plaintiff's Motion to enforce and amended a provision of the parties' Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) dealing with the funding of their children's college education. The parties in this case were married in 1995 and got divorced in 2007. Two (2) children were born during their marriage and a PSA was incorporated into their divorce judgment in 2007. In 2013, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to enforce and amend a provision of the PSA that required the Defendant to provide her with annual fund balances and make required monthly payments to the children's college savings accounts for their education. In response to the Plaintiff's Motion the Defendant admitted that between 2009 and 2013 he had withdrawn $33,000 from the college accounts but he had repaid the sum prior to the 2013 filing of the Plaintiff's Motion. The Defendant also admitted that in 2008 he withdrew $29,100 from the accounts to pay his federal and state taxes and he had not yet repaid that amount and he claimed that although the accounts should remain an asset for the children's benefit, he was not prevented from making necessary withdrawals from this accounts under the PSA. The Family Court judge ordered that the Plaintiff be named the custodian of the children's college savings accounts and that the defendant repay the $29,100 within thirty (30) days. The Defendant appealed claiming that the Family Court judge erred in making the Plaintiff the custodian of the college accounts, amending the PSA concerning the use of the account funds, amongst other prayers for relief. According to the Appellate Division, with regard to the enforcement of the PSA, New Jersey Court Rule 1:10-3 "provide[s] a mechanism, coercive in nature, to afford relief to a litigant who has not received what a Court Order or Judgment entitles that litigant to receive." D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 407 (Ch. Div. 1990). "The particular manner in which compliance may be sought is left to the court's sound discretion." Bd. of Educ. of Middletown v. Middletown Twp. Educ. Ass'n., 352 N.J. Super. 501, 509 (Ch. Div. 2001). According to these standards, the Appellate Division found no basis to disturb the Family Court judge's decision to place the Plaintiff in control of the children's college savings accounts. Although the Defendant was an "owner" of the account, the PSA required him to make regular monthly payments into the accounts. Nothing in the PSA indicated that the parties ever intended that the Defendant would or could periodically withdraw funds from the accounts to pay his personal expenses. If you believe that a post-judgment modification to your settlement agreement regarding the provisions of the agreement may be beneficial to you to you should seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification, equitable distribution, alimony, child support or other family law matters in New Jersey visit the DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice if an attorney.

Child Support And College Expenses Calculated Based on Imputation of Income To Mother

In Haymaker v. Haymaker, the Plaintiff appealed from a post-judgment Court Order that required her to contribute to her daughter's college expenses and set a child support obligation and amount of arrears. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded the decision of the Family Court. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married and two (2) children were born to them. The parties were divorced in 1996. The parties' second child, C.H. was attending Syracuse University since August 2012. From the parties' divorce until 2011, C.H. lived primarily with the Plaintiff. In 2011, the Defendant submitted an application to the court for a change in custody which was granted and an order issued allowing C.H. to live in the primary custody of the Defendant. The Motion was initiated based upon a "four-year financial plan" which was established between the Defendant and C.H. to free the Defendant from his child support obligation and to permit his contribution to C.H.'s college expenses. The change in custody negatively impacted C.H.'s relationship with the Plaintiff. In 2012, the Defendant filed another Motion which sought a Court Order to determine his proportionate share of his daughter's college contribution for the support needs that were not covered by her attendance at college. Subsequent to this, the court issued an Order directing that the Plaintiff pay $125 per week in child support starting in July of 2012. The Plaintiff then filed a Motion for reconsideration which was denied. The Plaintiff appealed the decision and a subsequent decision affixing her child support that was heard during the pendency of the appeal. According to the Appellate Court, the Family Court has "substantial discretion" in deciding issues of contribution to college expenses. Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109, 116 (App. Div. 2012); Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 594-95 (1995). An award will not be disturbed unless is it manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary. In Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982), the New Jersey Supreme Court provided a framework for evaluating parental contribution toward a child's post-secondary education. A Family Court judge has an obligation under Newburgh and N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) to consider all of the factors contained in that decision when making a contribution award. Further, it is well established that a child over the age of 18 who is enrolled in a full-time educational program requires continued support. Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 542 (2006). In this case, the Appellate Court did not take issue with the Family Court judge's analysis of the Newburgh factors in reaching his decision, rather, the court disagreed with the judge's factual findings relative to his consideration of a student loan and other unreimbursed costs in the calculus of his determination. The court also found that the Family judge's imputation of income to the Plaintiff was incorrect. Therefore, the case was reversed and remanded back to the Family Court for a re-calculation of these figures. If you believe that a post-judgment modification to your child support or college expense contribution obligation may be beneficial to you it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification, child support, divorce, child custody, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice if an attorney.

Post-Judgment Motion For College Tuition Is Denied

White v. White, is a 2015 post-judgment modification involving a Plaintiff who petitioned the court to compel her ex-husband, the Defendant, to reimburse her and their son for loans that the Plaintiff and the child used to pay for his college education. The Plaintiff appealed the decision of the Family Court which denied her initial Motion, filed in 2012, to compel the Defendant to reimburse her and her son for the aforementioned loans. After being married for six (6) years and having two (2) sons the parties agreed to divorce. The divorce was granted pursuant to a judgment of divorce that granted custody of the children to the Plaintiff, set forth the Defendant's child support obligation, and incorporated the parties' agreement concerning the equitable distribution of their property. The record reflected that the Defendant did not have contact with either of his children from 1998 through the time the initial Motion was filed in 2012. In 2008, the parties' youngest son entered college and graduated in 2011. In 2012, nine (9) months after the parties' child graduated college the Plaintiff filed a Motion seeking retroactive child support effective May 2009 through December 2011 and an Order directing the Defendant to pay for the non-emancipated child's college education as well as a loan that the Plaintiff has used for that purpose. The court denied the relief requested. The Appellate Court found that it was required by Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 546 (2006) to consider whether the Defendant had been involved in the college selection process at all. Further, the court noted that the Defendant was disabled and wondered whether or not it was fair to retroactively place the burden on him to inquire as to whether or not his children were entitled to any veteran benefits - as he was a veteran - to assist in the payment of college expenses. Relying on Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 535 (1982), Gac v. Gac, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) the Appellate Division ruled that waiting until the child graduated from college was fatal to the Plaintiff's application for retroactive contributions to the loan that she took out. Courts "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, surpa, 186 N.J. at 543. Being that it could not be determined exactly when the Defendant first learned that his son was attending college and why the Defendant was estranged from his son (and therefore not involved in the college selection process) the court was not willing to reverse the decision of the lower court. The issue was whether a non-custodial parent can be held liable to a child for the amount of educational benefits that would have been available from a non-parental source had the parent timely notified the child or child's custodial parent. The Plaintiff cited to no authority to support the imposition of such liability and therefore the court was not prepared to impose such. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your divorce judgment it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification , equitable distribution, divorce, alimony, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Father Contests College Tuition Obligations In Post-Judgment Divorce Filing

In the recent Appellate Division case, Gropper v. Gropper, the Defendant, Cy Gropper, appealed from two post-judgment Orders of the Morris County Family Court concerning his obligation to contribute to his son's college expenses based upon his final divorce judgment. The Defendant appealed from two (2) Family Court Orders, one filed on March 20, 2013 that directed him to pay $50 a week directly to the parties' son in child support and 58% of the child's college costs and expenses. The second Order, which was filed on May 21, 2013, denied the Defendant's Motion to reconsider the relief ordered in the previous Court Order. The Defendant claimed that his Motion for reconsideration was not properly considered by the court and that he should not have been ordered to pay his son's private school tuition when "the same education can be obtained a reputable public [state sponsored] schools" for a much lower cost. The Appellate Court ordered a limited remand to review the Defendant's Motion. The parties in this case were divorced in 1995. Their marriage yielded two children and pursuant to the property settlement agreement (PSA) which was incorporated into their final divorce judgment they were to share joint legal custody of their children and were to share their children's college education costs 52% by the Defendant and 48% by the Plaintiff. After the divorce, the Defendant moved to North Carolina. The parties' younger son applied and was accepted to attend an online private college, the University of Advancing Technology (UAT) as well as the University of North Carolina-Charlotte (UNC). Since he had to have spinal surgery, the child did not immediately attend college and subsequently moved to North Carolina. Based upon the child's move and his representation to UNC that his primary residence was the Defendant's address, the Defendant filed a Motion to modify his child support obligation asserting that any child support should be paid directly to the child and that the parties agreed that the child would attend UNC. The Plaintiff filed a Cross-Motion arguing that she agreed that the child support could be sent by Probation directly to the child, but disagreed that an amount adjustment was warranted. Further, she sought a review of each party's college expense contribution amount because the Defendant's income had increased from the time of the divorce. The Plaintiff also asserted that the parties' son had reluctantly agreed to attend UNC and planned on finishing his coursework at UAT because that school offered a major not found at UNC. In a 2013 Court Order, the judge modified the parties' child support obligations. In addition, with regard to the college expenses, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a), the judge ordered that the UAT tuition "after all loans, grants, and scholarships have been obtained" shall be paid 58% by the Defendant and 42% by the Plaintiff. The Defendant appealed. The Appellate Division found that the Family Court judge's statement of reasons supporting the Order at issue regarding the parties' respective college tuition obligations was premised on analysis of the child support statute, but did not mention any consideration of the factors outlined in Newburg v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982). Further, the Defendant, in his papers, also accurately indentified the need to consider whether the child is enrolled on a full-time basis. Khalaf v. Khalaf, 58 N.J. 63, 71-72 (1971). Therefore, the Appellate Division remanded the case back to the Family Court for an re-evaluation consistent with its opinion. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your divorce judgment regarding issues such as your obligation to pay your child's college expenses it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification, child support, parenting time, divorce, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Court Holds That Father Must Pay Law School Expenses in Post-Judgment Case

In Rossi v. Livingston, the New Jersey Appellate Court recently affirmed a lower Family Court's decision to enforce a divorce settlement in a post-judgment matter involving a requirement that a party pay for half of his child's law school expenses. In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, a father appealed from an order issued by a Family Court requiring that he pay for half of his daughter's law school expenses. In his appeal, the father argued that he should not have been required to do so because certain conditions which were established as part of his divorce judgment were not satisfied and therefore his obligation to pay for the school expenses were never triggered. Further, he argued that because his relationship with his daughter had soured following the divorce, there has been changed circumstances that relieved him of his obligation to pay for her law school education. The parent-parties in this case were married from 1983 until 2009. They have two children who were emancipated at the time of their divorce. With the help of their attorneys, the parties, agreed to a negotiated divorce settlement which was incorporated into their Final Judgment of Divorce. The agreement specified that neither party had to pay alimony or child support because both children were declared to be emancipated, but specifically stated that if the daughter did decide to go to law school either party could bring an application to the court to declare her un-emancipated. Further, the agreement stated with particularity that notwithstanding her emancipation status, the parties agreed that they shall each pay 50% of the law school expenses after scholarships and grants. In 2012, the daughter was accepted into law school and informed her father of her decision and reminded him that pursuant to the terms of the agreement which was incorporated into his divorce judgment, he was obligated to contribute 50% of the cost because she did not receive any scholarships or grants. The father responded by saying that he could not afford the cost of the law school that she had chosen, but would contribute $7,500 towards a cheaper law school. In late 2012, the mother hired an attorney who wrote a letter to the father directing him to pay for half of the law school expenses pursuant to the agreement that he signed. Subsequently, the mother filed a post-judgment motion with the Family Court to enforce the terms of the agreement. The Family Court judge held that the father was obligated to contribute his agreed upon financial obligation toward his daughter's law school expenses because "New Jersey has long espoused a policy favoring the use of consensual agreements to resolve marital controversies." J.B. v. W.B., 215 N.J. 1, 5 (2011). In addition, the court found that the mother and child did not materially breach the underlying agreement by taking 10 days instead of 5 days to notify the father about her decision, because the extra time was used to appeal the law school's decision to not award the daughter any financial aid. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision citing that "Where a settlement agreement is used to define the terms of a divorce, the agreement should be 'entitled to considerable weight with respect to [its] validity and enforceability' in equity, provided [it is] fair and just. Dolce v. Dolce, 383 N.J. Super. 11, 20 (App. Div. 2006). If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your divorce judgment, alimony award, or child support obligation it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modifications, divorce, spousal support, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.