NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-1463-16T3
JEFFREY S. GOLDSTEIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MERYL S. GOLDSTEIN,
Defendant-Respondent. ___________________________
Submitted September 20, 2017 – Decided December 5, 2017
Before Judges Simonelli and Rothstadt.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FM-02-0424-14.
Jeffrey S. Goldstein, appellant pro se.
Callagy Law, PC, attorneys for respondent (Brian P. McCann, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Jeffrey
S. Goldstein appeals from the November 4, 2016 Family Part order,
which denied his motion for a downward modification of his child
support obligation. We affirm. The following facts are pertinent to our review. Plaintiff
and defendant Meryl S. Goldstein were married in 1990, and divorced
in 2015. They have two children, one born in 1998, and the other
in 2001. At the time plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce in
August 2013, he was a partner in a law firm, and had gross earned
income of $225,575 in 2012 and 2013.
On May 5, 2015, the parties executed a Property Settlement
and Support Agreement (PSSA), which was incorporated into their
Dual Final Judgment of Divorce. The PSSA required plaintiff to
pay child support in the amount of $700 per week for both children,
commencing May 5, 2015. The PSSA also required plaintiff to
maintain medical insurance for the children. In the event he no
longer had medical insurance through his employer, the PSSA
required the parties to equally pay the cost of same, with
plaintiff's share added to his weekly child support.
At the time plaintiff executed the PSSA, he was no longer
employed due to an alleged mental health condition, and was
receiving disability benefits of $11,608.37 per month from
Principal Life Insurance Company (Principal), and $4830 per month
from the Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America, for a total
of $16,438.37 per month. Plaintiff received his first disability
payment from Principal on August 13, 2014, and knew the payments
would cease two years later. Because he no longer had medical
2 A-1463-16T3 insurance through his law firm, his child support payment increased
to $753.41 per week.
Plaintiff received his last payment from Principal in August
2016. On September 23, 2016, he filed a motion for a downward
modification of his child support obligation based on an alleged
change in financial circumstances.
In support of his motion, plaintiff submitted a Case
Information Statement (CIS), dated September 19, 2016.1 He listed
gross earned income of $31,824 for 2015, which represented
compensation from his former law firm, but did not disclose that
he also received monthly payments exceeding $700 from his former
law firm. In addition, he listed a bank account, but did not
disclose the value. Further, his list of monthly expenses was
improper. He listed some expenses as "per month," but listed
others as "per quarter," "every [six] months," "per [week]," and
"per [year]." He also did not disclose that some of the expenses
represented joint expenses attributable to his current wife.
Plaintiff certified that he applied for Social Security
Disability benefits and was denied, but did not disclose the reason
for the denial. When the motion judge inquired about the denial,
1 Plaintiff also submitted his prior CIS, dated November 26, 2013.
3 A-1463-16T3 plaintiff finally disclosed that in February 2016, Social Security
determined he was capable of performing other work.
In an oral decision, the motion judge found that plaintiff's
year-to-date income, through November 2016, provided him with
enough money to pay his child support and monthly expenses, and
he also had retirement assets at his disposal. The record reveals
that plaintiff's annual child support obligation of $39,177, plus
his annual expenses listed on his CIS of $90,000, totaled $129,177
in yearly expenses. Plaintiff received two years of disability
benefits totaling $394,520. In addition, he received $700 per
month over the same two-year period, for a total of $16,800, plus
a $31,824 payment from his former law firm. In sum, over a two
year period plaintiff received $443,144, and had $78,354 in child
support and $180,000 in expenses, leaving him with $184,790.
The motion judge also found plaintiff's CIS was not complete
and clear and failed to disclose all of his income, and plaintiff
failed to disclose that Social Security determined he was capable
of working. The judge also determined plaintiff knew when he
entered into the PSSA that the $11,608.37 disability payment would
cease in two years, and he presented no evidence he could not work
to supplement his income. The judge ultimately determined there
was no change in plaintiff's financial circumstance warranting a
downward modification of child support, but rather, his
4 A-1463-16T3 circumstances were the same as when he executed the PSSA. The
judge entered an order on November 4, 2016, denying plaintiff's
motion without prejudice, and directing him to pay $50 per week
toward child support arrears, among other things. This appeal
followed.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the motion judge wrongfully
denied his motion. He also argues the judge violated his
Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendment Rights.2
We review a trial court's grant or denial of applications to
modify child support for abuse of discretion. J.B. v. W.B., 215
N.J. 305, 325-26 (2013) (citation omitted). We will not disturb
the trial court's decision "unless it is manifestly unreasonable,
arbitrary, or clearly contrary to reason or to other evidence, or
the result of whim or caprice." Id. at 326 (quoting Jacoby v.
Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109, 116 (App. Div. 2012)). We discern
no abuse of discretion here.
A parent seeking to modify a child support order must show
"changed circumstances had substantially impaired the [parent's]
ability to support himself or herself." Foust v. Glaser, 340 N.J.
Super. 312, 316 (App. Div. 2001) (quoting Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J.
139, 157 (1980)). The movant must "make a prima facie showing of
2 Plaintiff also argues the judge should be recused. The judge is retired and not on recall. Thus, this argument is moot.
5 A-1463-16T3 changed circumstances warranting relief prior to the court
ordering discovery of the full financial circumstances" of the
parties. Dorfman v. Dorfman, 315 N.J. Super. 511, 515 (App. Div.
1998) (citation omitted). "If that showing is made, and after
receipt of ordered discovery, the judge then determines whether
the changed circumstances justify modification." Ibid. A plenary
hearing is not required unless there are genuine issues of material
fact. Ibid. (citation omitted).
A proper changed circumstances analysis "requires a court to
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-1463-16T3
JEFFREY S. GOLDSTEIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MERYL S. GOLDSTEIN,
Defendant-Respondent. ___________________________
Submitted September 20, 2017 – Decided December 5, 2017
Before Judges Simonelli and Rothstadt.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FM-02-0424-14.
Jeffrey S. Goldstein, appellant pro se.
Callagy Law, PC, attorneys for respondent (Brian P. McCann, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Jeffrey
S. Goldstein appeals from the November 4, 2016 Family Part order,
which denied his motion for a downward modification of his child
support obligation. We affirm. The following facts are pertinent to our review. Plaintiff
and defendant Meryl S. Goldstein were married in 1990, and divorced
in 2015. They have two children, one born in 1998, and the other
in 2001. At the time plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce in
August 2013, he was a partner in a law firm, and had gross earned
income of $225,575 in 2012 and 2013.
On May 5, 2015, the parties executed a Property Settlement
and Support Agreement (PSSA), which was incorporated into their
Dual Final Judgment of Divorce. The PSSA required plaintiff to
pay child support in the amount of $700 per week for both children,
commencing May 5, 2015. The PSSA also required plaintiff to
maintain medical insurance for the children. In the event he no
longer had medical insurance through his employer, the PSSA
required the parties to equally pay the cost of same, with
plaintiff's share added to his weekly child support.
At the time plaintiff executed the PSSA, he was no longer
employed due to an alleged mental health condition, and was
receiving disability benefits of $11,608.37 per month from
Principal Life Insurance Company (Principal), and $4830 per month
from the Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America, for a total
of $16,438.37 per month. Plaintiff received his first disability
payment from Principal on August 13, 2014, and knew the payments
would cease two years later. Because he no longer had medical
2 A-1463-16T3 insurance through his law firm, his child support payment increased
to $753.41 per week.
Plaintiff received his last payment from Principal in August
2016. On September 23, 2016, he filed a motion for a downward
modification of his child support obligation based on an alleged
change in financial circumstances.
In support of his motion, plaintiff submitted a Case
Information Statement (CIS), dated September 19, 2016.1 He listed
gross earned income of $31,824 for 2015, which represented
compensation from his former law firm, but did not disclose that
he also received monthly payments exceeding $700 from his former
law firm. In addition, he listed a bank account, but did not
disclose the value. Further, his list of monthly expenses was
improper. He listed some expenses as "per month," but listed
others as "per quarter," "every [six] months," "per [week]," and
"per [year]." He also did not disclose that some of the expenses
represented joint expenses attributable to his current wife.
Plaintiff certified that he applied for Social Security
Disability benefits and was denied, but did not disclose the reason
for the denial. When the motion judge inquired about the denial,
1 Plaintiff also submitted his prior CIS, dated November 26, 2013.
3 A-1463-16T3 plaintiff finally disclosed that in February 2016, Social Security
determined he was capable of performing other work.
In an oral decision, the motion judge found that plaintiff's
year-to-date income, through November 2016, provided him with
enough money to pay his child support and monthly expenses, and
he also had retirement assets at his disposal. The record reveals
that plaintiff's annual child support obligation of $39,177, plus
his annual expenses listed on his CIS of $90,000, totaled $129,177
in yearly expenses. Plaintiff received two years of disability
benefits totaling $394,520. In addition, he received $700 per
month over the same two-year period, for a total of $16,800, plus
a $31,824 payment from his former law firm. In sum, over a two
year period plaintiff received $443,144, and had $78,354 in child
support and $180,000 in expenses, leaving him with $184,790.
The motion judge also found plaintiff's CIS was not complete
and clear and failed to disclose all of his income, and plaintiff
failed to disclose that Social Security determined he was capable
of working. The judge also determined plaintiff knew when he
entered into the PSSA that the $11,608.37 disability payment would
cease in two years, and he presented no evidence he could not work
to supplement his income. The judge ultimately determined there
was no change in plaintiff's financial circumstance warranting a
downward modification of child support, but rather, his
4 A-1463-16T3 circumstances were the same as when he executed the PSSA. The
judge entered an order on November 4, 2016, denying plaintiff's
motion without prejudice, and directing him to pay $50 per week
toward child support arrears, among other things. This appeal
followed.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the motion judge wrongfully
denied his motion. He also argues the judge violated his
Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendment Rights.2
We review a trial court's grant or denial of applications to
modify child support for abuse of discretion. J.B. v. W.B., 215
N.J. 305, 325-26 (2013) (citation omitted). We will not disturb
the trial court's decision "unless it is manifestly unreasonable,
arbitrary, or clearly contrary to reason or to other evidence, or
the result of whim or caprice." Id. at 326 (quoting Jacoby v.
Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109, 116 (App. Div. 2012)). We discern
no abuse of discretion here.
A parent seeking to modify a child support order must show
"changed circumstances had substantially impaired the [parent's]
ability to support himself or herself." Foust v. Glaser, 340 N.J.
Super. 312, 316 (App. Div. 2001) (quoting Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J.
139, 157 (1980)). The movant must "make a prima facie showing of
2 Plaintiff also argues the judge should be recused. The judge is retired and not on recall. Thus, this argument is moot.
5 A-1463-16T3 changed circumstances warranting relief prior to the court
ordering discovery of the full financial circumstances" of the
parties. Dorfman v. Dorfman, 315 N.J. Super. 511, 515 (App. Div.
1998) (citation omitted). "If that showing is made, and after
receipt of ordered discovery, the judge then determines whether
the changed circumstances justify modification." Ibid. A plenary
hearing is not required unless there are genuine issues of material
fact. Ibid. (citation omitted).
A proper changed circumstances analysis "requires a court to
study the parties' financial condition at the time of the divorce,
as well as, at the time of the application." Deegan v. Deegan,
254 N.J. Super. 350, 355 (App. Div. 1992). For this reason, Rule
5:5-4(a) requires the moving party to append a copy of his or her
prior and current CIS. As we have stated:
This mandate is not just window dressing. It is, on the contrary, a way for the trial judge to get a complete picture of the finances of the movants in a modification case. This is important because the movant bears the initial burden in such a case under Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980).
[Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 287 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting Gulya v. Gulya, 251 N.J. Super. 250, 253-54 (App. Div. 1991)).]
Further, "[c]ourts have consistently rejected requests for
modification [of support obligations] based on circumstances which
are only temporary or which are expected but have not yet
6 A-1463-16T3 occurred." Lepis, 83 N.J. at 151 (citation omitted). "[S]upport,
whether set by court order or agreement, [may] be modified upon a
showing of substantial, non-temporary changes in ability to
support oneself or pay support." Gordon v. Rozenwald, 380 N.J.
Super. 55, 67-68 (App. Div. 2005). Temporary unemployment is not
grounds for a modification of support." Bonanno v. Bonanno, 4
N.J. 268, 275 (1950). The movant must show that the alleged change
in circumstances is involuntary and permanent. J.B., 215 N.J. at
327.
Based upon our review of the record, we discern no reason to
disturb the judge's ruling, and affirm substantially for the
reasons the motion judge expressed in her oral decision. Defendant
failed to provide a complete and accurate CIS, and failed to make
a prima facie showing of a significant change in financial
circumstances to warrant a reduction in child support. He did not
show that changed circumstances had substantially impaired his
ability to support himself, or that he is permanently disabled and
cannot work at all.
Affirmed.
7 A-1463-16T3