Norman L. Scott, Sr. v. Trina Ragsdale

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: March 24, 2025
• Docket: A-1743-23
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1743-23

NORMAN L. SCOTT, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TRINA RAGSDALE,

Defendant-Respondent. ________________________

Submitted March 13, 2025 – Decided March 24, 2025

Before Judges Mawla and Walcott-Henderson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, Docket No. FM-04-0400-07.

Norman L. Scott, Sr., appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Norman Scott, Sr. appeals from a portion of a February 1, 2024

Family Part order granting his application to retroactively modify his child support obligation based on a finding by the Social Security Administration

(SSA) that he is disabled. The court determined plaintiff was entitled to a

retroactive modification of child support as of the effective date of his third

Social Security Disability (SSD) application, September 27, 2023. Plaintiff

asserts the court erred by not granting the relief retroactive to the date of his first

modification application, September 13, 2021. We affirm.

Plaintiff and defendant Trina Ragsdale were married on October 6, 2001.

They are the parents of twins born in 2002, who were both enrolled in college

at the time of this appeal. The parties divorced by way of a final judgment with

stipulation of settlement entered on June 13, 2007, which required plaintiff pay

defendant $162 per week in child support via wage execution.

Plaintiff asserts he last worked on or before June 2020 and applied for

SSD benefits in April 2021.1 During the pendency of his application for SSD

benefits, plaintiff filed two motions seeking to modify his child support

obligation, which were both denied without prejudice.2 According to plaintiff,

"[e]verything was pending, so they denied it without prejudice."

1 The record is devoid of any information concerning plaintiff's SSA benefits determination. 2 The record is devoid of plaintiff's prior motions and the orders denying th ose motions without prejudice. A-1743-23 2 On September 27, 2023, plaintiff filed a third motion seeking a

modification of child support. According to the motion hearing record, plaintiff

received an SSD benefit verification letter dated November 20, 2023,

confirming his SSD benefits award, of which $29,000 was paid towards his child

support obligation.3

At the December 14, 2023 motion hearing to modify child support,

plaintiff was represented by counsel, who confirmed plaintiff was seeking a

"retroactive modification of the child support based on the two prior orders that

were denied without prejudice during his [SSD] application." Following oral

argument, the court concluded "I'm going to recalculate child support. I will

explain the basis for the recalculation in the order, and then issue an order [,]

which has an updated amount."

In its February 1, 2024 written order, the court granted plaintiff's

application to recalculate or modify child support "based on [SSA]'s recent

determination that [p]laintiff is disabled." The court reduced child support to

$125 per week using the parties' income and the Child Support Guidelines

consistent with their agreement. It found

[a]lthough [it had] indicated on the record an intent[] to

3 The record also does not include proof of plaintiff's child support arrears prior to the SSD benefits award. A-1743-23 3 grant [p]laintiff's request to modify child support retroactive to [p]laintiff's first application to modify child support based on his alleged disability, after a careful examination of the prior orders in this matter and reference to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23a, the [c]ourt has determined that such a retroactive modification would not be equitable or appropriate. The [c]ourt further note[d] that [p]laintiff was previously given the opportunity to provide proof of disability apart from any determination of disability by the [SSA].

The court made the order effective as of September 27, 2023. Generally,

our review of a Family Part's findings is limited. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J.

394, 411 (1998). We "accord particular deference to the Family Part because of

its 'special jurisdiction and expertise' in family matters." Harte v. Hand, 433

N.J. Super. 457, 461 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting Cesare, 154 N.J. at 413).

"Findings by the trial court are binding on appeal when supported by adequate,

substantial, [and] credible evidence." Cesare, 154 N.J. at 411-12 (citing Rova

Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). However,

we owe no special deference to the trial court's "interpretation of the law and the

legal consequences that flow from established facts." Manalapan Realty, L.P.

v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).

N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23a prohibits retroactive modification of child support

and child support arrearages. Keegan v. Keegan, 326 N.J. Super. 289, 293 (App.

Div. 1999). In pertinent part, the statute provides:

A-1743-23 4 No payment or installment of an order for child support, or those portions of an order which are allocated for child support established . . . shall be retroactively modified by the court except with respect to the period during which there is a pending application for modification, but only from the date the notice of motion was mailed either directly or through the appropriate agent.

[N.J.S.A. 2A:18-56.23a (emphasis added).]

As a preliminary matter, we glean from plaintiff's brief that he is

challenging solely the effective date of the new child support order, and not the

amount of child support. We discern no abuse of discretion as regards to the

retroactive date for child support.

The court considered plaintiff's receipt of SSD benefits retroactive to May

25, 2021, and the derivative benefits of $29,000 paid to the children. The court

declined to make the new child support amount retroactive to September 13,

2021 because plaintiff had not supported the motion with proof of disability

apart from any determination by SSA, despite the opportunity to provide proof

of disability.

Given these circumstances, the court neither abused its discretion nor

misapplied N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23a when it made the new child support figure

retroactive to the filing date of plaintiff's latest motion for modification.

Although plaintiff's prior motions had been dismissed without prejudice, they

A-1743-23 5 were nonetheless dismissed and not pending because plaintiff had previously

failed to comply with the court's instruction to provide proof of disability in

support of his prior motions.

Affirmed.

A-1743-23 6