NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0473-24
COLLEEN CONNOLLY, f/k/a COLLEEN CONNOLLY-JONES,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DAVID A. JONES,
Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________
Submitted January 29, 2026 ‒ Decided April 14, 2026
Before Judges Marczyk and Bishop-Thompson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County, Docket No. FM-18-0784-09.
David A. Jones, self-represented appellant.
SeidenFreed LLC, attorneys for respondent (Derek M. Freed, of counsel and on the brief; Victoria D. Miranda, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant David A. Jones appeals from the provisions of the Family Part's
August 27, 2024 order denying his request to recalculate the maintenance award
for the parties' son and to amend the maintenance payments to reflect their son's
income and federal support payments. In challenging these provisions,
defendant asserts the court did not consider their son's assets, income, and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits information. Defendant contends
the court abused its discretion in considering the relevant factors set forth in
N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a). Having reviewed the record, we affirm.
The parties were married in 1998; three children were born from their
marriage. The two eldest are emancipated. A dual final judgment of divorce
(DFJD) was entered on December 21, 2011. The DFJD directed defendant to
pay $47,616 per year in permanent alimony. At the time of the divorce,
defendant lived in Virginia and earned approximately $175,000 per year as a
pharmaceutical executive. Plaintiff Colleen Connolly worked as a substitute
teacher earning approximately $27,000 per year and was at the time and remains
the sole caregiver for their special needs son.
A-0473-24 2 The subject of this appeal is the parties' youngest child, M.J.1—a special
needs adult with "autism limited"—who will never be emancipated. He earns
approximately $8,000 per year through an enrichment program.
In 2023, defendant moved to reduce his alimony obligation following his
separation from employment. Plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved to
compel defendant to contribute $284 per week to the Achieving a Better Life
Experience (ABLE) Disability Savings Plan,2 or a special needs trust, to allow
M.J. to have access to the funds for a better quality of life and care. In an
October 31, 2023 order, the court denied defendant's motion to retroactively
modify his alimony obligation from January 2023 to September 2023. The court
determined defendant's temporary nine-month unemployment was not a
permanent, substantial change in circumstances. It granted plaintiff's cross-
motion to direct defendant to provide the weekly maintenance support for the
1 We use initials to protect the individual's privacy interests. R. 1:38-3(a)(2) 2 An ABLE account is a tax-advantaged savings account available to cover qualified disability expenses for an individual with a blindness or disability that began before the age of forty-six. The designated beneficiary of the ABLE account is the account owner. The annual deposit limits are subject to change each calendar year. ABLE funds are not countable resources for SSI beneficiaries. About ABLE Accounts, ABLE: Nat'l Res. Ctr., https://ablenrc.org/what-is-able/what-are-able-accounts/ (last visited April 1, 2026). A-0473-24 3 ABLE account or special needs trust, finding "[N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a)](1), (2),
(3), (6)[,] (7)[,] and (10) weigh[ed] in favor of mandating continuing financial
maintenance for . . . [M.J.]." Defendant did not appeal this order.
Following the entry of the court's order, defendant mailed plaintiff copies
of the ABLE statement and informed her, due to tax consequences, he would
split his contributions between the ABLE account and a Fidelity account.
However, defendant denied plaintiff access to the ABLE account. In response,
plaintiff filed a motion seeking access to the ABLE and Fidelity accounts,
requesting all funds be deposited exclusively into the ABLE account, and
attorney's fees and costs. Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved to
modify his financial maintenance obligation and provide proof of M.J.'s then-
current income and SSI benefits.
In its June 20, 2024 order, the court granted plaintiff's motion in part,
directing defendant to arrange access to the ABLE account or withdraw funds
weekly and deposit those funds into an account designated by plaintiff for M.J.'s
use, and awarded counsel fees. The court denied defendant's cross-motion. In
an accompanying statement of reasons, the court stated: "Defendant [did] not
submit[] any evidence to suggest that those support payments were not intended
to be turned over to plaintiff, who is responsible for [M.J.]'s care, or any
A-0473-24 4 justifiable rationale for limiting plaintiff's access to these support payments for
[M.J.]'s care."
Defendant moved for reconsideration of the June order, which denied his
request for proof of M.J.'s current income and SSI benefits. He asserted the
court's ruling conflicted with N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) factors. Plaintiff opposed
the motion and cross-moved, seeking an order compelling defendant to re-issue
his maintenance payments recently made and counsel fees and costs.
Following oral argument, the court entered an order on August 27, 2024,
accompanied by a statement of reasons denying defendant's request for plaintiff
to provide proof of M.J.'s income and SSI benefits, and to modify the
maintenance award. Rather, the court directed plaintiff to provide defendant
with M.J.'s annual income and benefits. In the statement of reasons, it noted
this was defendant's third motion within the year addressing his responsibility
to provide maintenance payments. Again, the court found defendant "[had] not
demonstrated that the [c]ourt's October 31, 2023 [o]rder setting the amount of
maintenance at $284, or the [c]ourt's June 20, 2024 [o]rder rejecting defendant's
attempt to obtain discovery to modify the $284 award, [was] palpably incorrect
or determined on an irrational basis." The court again determined defendant
A-0473-24 5 failed to establish a change in circumstances warranting a modification of the
maintenance award. Defendant's motion for a stay of this order was denied.
Our scope of review of Family Part orders is limited. Gormley v.
Gormley, 462 N.J. Super. 433, 442 (App. Div. 2019). Consequently, findings
by a court "are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial,
credible evidence." T.M.S. v. W.C.P., 450 N.J. Super. 499, 502 (App. Div.
2017) (quoting Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998)). However, legal
conclusions and the interpretation of statutes or the application of legal
standards are reviewed de novo. Thieme v. Aucoin-Thieme, 227 N.J. 269, 283
(2016).
A trial court's decision on a motion for reconsideration is reviewed under
an abuse of discretion standard. JPC Merger Sub LLC v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT 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-0473-24
COLLEEN CONNOLLY, f/k/a COLLEEN CONNOLLY-JONES,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DAVID A. JONES,
Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________
Submitted January 29, 2026 ‒ Decided April 14, 2026
Before Judges Marczyk and Bishop-Thompson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County, Docket No. FM-18-0784-09.
David A. Jones, self-represented appellant.
SeidenFreed LLC, attorneys for respondent (Derek M. Freed, of counsel and on the brief; Victoria D. Miranda, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant David A. Jones appeals from the provisions of the Family Part's
August 27, 2024 order denying his request to recalculate the maintenance award
for the parties' son and to amend the maintenance payments to reflect their son's
income and federal support payments. In challenging these provisions,
defendant asserts the court did not consider their son's assets, income, and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits information. Defendant contends
the court abused its discretion in considering the relevant factors set forth in
N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a). Having reviewed the record, we affirm.
The parties were married in 1998; three children were born from their
marriage. The two eldest are emancipated. A dual final judgment of divorce
(DFJD) was entered on December 21, 2011. The DFJD directed defendant to
pay $47,616 per year in permanent alimony. At the time of the divorce,
defendant lived in Virginia and earned approximately $175,000 per year as a
pharmaceutical executive. Plaintiff Colleen Connolly worked as a substitute
teacher earning approximately $27,000 per year and was at the time and remains
the sole caregiver for their special needs son.
A-0473-24 2 The subject of this appeal is the parties' youngest child, M.J.1—a special
needs adult with "autism limited"—who will never be emancipated. He earns
approximately $8,000 per year through an enrichment program.
In 2023, defendant moved to reduce his alimony obligation following his
separation from employment. Plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved to
compel defendant to contribute $284 per week to the Achieving a Better Life
Experience (ABLE) Disability Savings Plan,2 or a special needs trust, to allow
M.J. to have access to the funds for a better quality of life and care. In an
October 31, 2023 order, the court denied defendant's motion to retroactively
modify his alimony obligation from January 2023 to September 2023. The court
determined defendant's temporary nine-month unemployment was not a
permanent, substantial change in circumstances. It granted plaintiff's cross-
motion to direct defendant to provide the weekly maintenance support for the
1 We use initials to protect the individual's privacy interests. R. 1:38-3(a)(2) 2 An ABLE account is a tax-advantaged savings account available to cover qualified disability expenses for an individual with a blindness or disability that began before the age of forty-six. The designated beneficiary of the ABLE account is the account owner. The annual deposit limits are subject to change each calendar year. ABLE funds are not countable resources for SSI beneficiaries. About ABLE Accounts, ABLE: Nat'l Res. Ctr., https://ablenrc.org/what-is-able/what-are-able-accounts/ (last visited April 1, 2026). A-0473-24 3 ABLE account or special needs trust, finding "[N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a)](1), (2),
(3), (6)[,] (7)[,] and (10) weigh[ed] in favor of mandating continuing financial
maintenance for . . . [M.J.]." Defendant did not appeal this order.
Following the entry of the court's order, defendant mailed plaintiff copies
of the ABLE statement and informed her, due to tax consequences, he would
split his contributions between the ABLE account and a Fidelity account.
However, defendant denied plaintiff access to the ABLE account. In response,
plaintiff filed a motion seeking access to the ABLE and Fidelity accounts,
requesting all funds be deposited exclusively into the ABLE account, and
attorney's fees and costs. Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved to
modify his financial maintenance obligation and provide proof of M.J.'s then-
current income and SSI benefits.
In its June 20, 2024 order, the court granted plaintiff's motion in part,
directing defendant to arrange access to the ABLE account or withdraw funds
weekly and deposit those funds into an account designated by plaintiff for M.J.'s
use, and awarded counsel fees. The court denied defendant's cross-motion. In
an accompanying statement of reasons, the court stated: "Defendant [did] not
submit[] any evidence to suggest that those support payments were not intended
to be turned over to plaintiff, who is responsible for [M.J.]'s care, or any
A-0473-24 4 justifiable rationale for limiting plaintiff's access to these support payments for
[M.J.]'s care."
Defendant moved for reconsideration of the June order, which denied his
request for proof of M.J.'s current income and SSI benefits. He asserted the
court's ruling conflicted with N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) factors. Plaintiff opposed
the motion and cross-moved, seeking an order compelling defendant to re-issue
his maintenance payments recently made and counsel fees and costs.
Following oral argument, the court entered an order on August 27, 2024,
accompanied by a statement of reasons denying defendant's request for plaintiff
to provide proof of M.J.'s income and SSI benefits, and to modify the
maintenance award. Rather, the court directed plaintiff to provide defendant
with M.J.'s annual income and benefits. In the statement of reasons, it noted
this was defendant's third motion within the year addressing his responsibility
to provide maintenance payments. Again, the court found defendant "[had] not
demonstrated that the [c]ourt's October 31, 2023 [o]rder setting the amount of
maintenance at $284, or the [c]ourt's June 20, 2024 [o]rder rejecting defendant's
attempt to obtain discovery to modify the $284 award, [was] palpably incorrect
or determined on an irrational basis." The court again determined defendant
A-0473-24 5 failed to establish a change in circumstances warranting a modification of the
maintenance award. Defendant's motion for a stay of this order was denied.
Our scope of review of Family Part orders is limited. Gormley v.
Gormley, 462 N.J. Super. 433, 442 (App. Div. 2019). Consequently, findings
by a court "are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial,
credible evidence." T.M.S. v. W.C.P., 450 N.J. Super. 499, 502 (App. Div.
2017) (quoting Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998)). However, legal
conclusions and the interpretation of statutes or the application of legal
standards are reviewed de novo. Thieme v. Aucoin-Thieme, 227 N.J. 269, 283
(2016).
A trial court's decision on a motion for reconsideration is reviewed under
an abuse of discretion standard. JPC Merger Sub LLC v. Tricon Enters., Inc.,
474 N.J. Super. 145, 160 (App. Div. 2022). Reconsideration should be granted
where "1) the [c]ourt has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect
or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or
failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence."
Dennehy v. East Windsor Reg'l Bd. of Educ., 469 N.J. Super. 357, 363 (App.
Div. 2021) (alterations in original) (quoting Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super.
274, 288 (App. Div. 2010)). The moving party must "initially demonstrate that
A-0473-24 6 the [c]ourt acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner, before the
[c]ourt should engage in the actual reconsideration process." D'Atria v. D'Atria,
242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990).
On appeal, defendant reprises the arguments presented to the Family Court
regarding proof of M.J.'s income and federal benefits and the application of the
statutory factors. We are unconvinced the court did not consider these factors,
particularly N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a)(7)—the "income, assets[,] and earning ability
of the child."
The court's statement of reasons thoroughly outlined the motion history
and included extensive factual findings regarding M.J.'s status as a special needs
adult, who "only works a few hours [per] week to keep him engaged and earns
an income of approximately the minimum hourly wage." The court further
considered the statutory factors, as noted in the October 31, 2023 order.
Although the court's June 20, 2024 order did not expressly reference the
statutory factors, it nonetheless considered factor (7) observing there was no
proof M.J. was earning, either through income or benefits, more than the
minimum wage. The court afforded defendant every opportunity to present a
change in circumstances to modify the maintenance; however, he did not provide
competent proofs.
A-0473-24 7 We are mindful defendant's reconsideration motion was the third attempt
to modify his maintenance obligation to his son. "Critically . . . , reconsideration
is not meant to re-litigate issues already decided or otherwise award a proverbial
'second bite at the apple' to a dissatisfied litigant." 160 Chubb Props., LLC v.
Twp. of Lyndhurst, 31 N.J. Tax. 192, 199 (Tax 2019); see also D'Atria, 242 N.J.
Super. at 401 ("[M]otion practice must come to an end at some point, and if
repetitive bites at the apple are allowed, the core will swiftly sour."). Based on
our careful review of the record, we are satisfied the court did not abuse its
discretion in denying defendant's motion for reconsideration.
Affirmed.
A-0473-24 8