JON ANDREW DRESSNER VS. LISA MARIE DRESSNER(FM-12-1886-09, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3326-15T1

JON ANDREW DRESSNER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LISA MARIE DRESSNER,

Defendant-Respondent.
___________________________

Argued August 15, 2017 – Decided August 28, 2017

Before Judges Manahan and Gilson.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex
County, Docket No. FM-12-1886-09.

Natalie L. Thompson argued the cause for
appellant (Gruber, Colabella, Liuzza &
Thompson, attorneys; Mark Gruber and Ms.
Thompson, on the brief.)

Patrick T. Collins argued the cause for
respondent (Graham Curtin, PA, attorneys; Mr.
Collins, on the brief.)

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Jon Dressner appeals from certain provisions of two

post-divorce-judgment orders that addressed his requests to

terminate or modify his alimony and child support obligations.
Specifically, plaintiff objects to the effective dates of the

termination and modification of his obligations, the designation

of defendant, Lisa Dressner, as the parent of primary residential

custody, the modification of his child support obligation, and the

denial of his request for attorney and expert fees. Having

reviewed these contentions and the written opinions of the Family

Part judge, we affirm.

I.

The parties were married in 1994 and divorced in 2009. They

have four children, who are currently ages nineteen, eighteen,

fifteen and fifteen. At the time of their divorce, the parties

entered into a property settlement agreement (PSA). Under the

PSA, the parties, among other things, agreed (1) to essentially

share equal parenting time with their children; (2) plaintiff

would pay defendant alimony for ten years in the amount of $3333

per month; and plaintiff would pay defendant child support of $277

per month. Those support provisions were premised on plaintiff

earning $198,184 per year and defendant earning $64,780 per year.

In August 2012, plaintiff lost his job as a vice president

of marketing. After making efforts to obtain comparable

employment, plaintiff took a position with a family-owned business

where, by 2015, he was being paid $85,000 per year. Plaintiff

2 A-3326-15T1
also earned approximately $8500 per year from a consulting business

he had established.

On December 13, 2013, plaintiff sent defendant a letter

notifying her that he was seeking to suspend his support

obligations. Thereafter, on January 12, 2014, plaintiff filed a

motion to suspend his alimony payments and to terminate his child

support obligation. Plaintiff also sought other relief. Defendant

opposed that motion and cross-moved for an award of attorney's

fees.

In an order entered on February 14, 2014, the Family Part

found that plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of a change

in circumstances, allowed discovery, and set the matter down for

a plenary hearing. The February 14, 2014 order also provided that

"[a]ny modification of child support shall be retroactive to the

date of filing of this application."

The court conducted a three-day plenary hearing in late 2014

and early 2015. Both parties testified and plaintiff called an

employment expert and his aunt, who at the time ran the family

business for which he was working. Following the hearing, the

parties submitted additional briefs.

On July 16, 2015, Judge Christopher Rafano issued an order

and supporting written opinion. Among other things, Judge Rafano

(1) granted plaintiff's application to terminate his alimony

3 A-3326-15T1
obligation and made that termination effective July 16, 2015; and

(2) denied both parties' requests for attorney's fees. The judge

found that plaintiff had lost his job in August 2012, had made

diligent efforts to find comparable work, and ultimately had taken

employment with a family business. The judge also found that

plaintiff was currently earning approximately $93,500 per year and

defendant was earning approximately $131,000 per year. Thus,

Judge Rafano terminated plaintiff's alimony obligation, but after

considering the "equities" made that termination effective July

16, 2015 - - the date of the order. The judge also denied both

parties' requests for attorneys' fees reasoning that both parties

"acted in good faith."

In the July 16, 2015 order, Judge Rafano denied without

prejudice plaintiff's request to terminate his child support

obligation. The judge then directed the parties to submit

additional information and proofs, which the parties did.

On February 29, 2016, Judge Rafano issued an order addressing

plaintiff's request to terminate his child support obligation.

The judge also issued child support guidelines and again supported

that order with a written statement of reasons.

The judge modified, but did not terminate plaintiff's child

support. Specifically, the judge reduced plaintiff's child

support from $277 per month to $19 per week (that is, $82.33 per

4 A-3326-15T1
month), effective July 16, 2015. In his supporting statement of

reasons, the judge found that defendant should be designated as

the parent of primary residential custody because the children

attended school in the district where defendant resided. The

judge also decided not to make adjustments to the child support

for controlled expenses, as allowed in Wunsch-Deffler v. Deffler,

406 N.J. Super. 505 (Ch. Div. 2009). In that regard, Judge Rafano

reasoned that it was better to consider only the facts that were

"undisputed[.]" Finally, Judge Rafano explained that he

considered the facts and equities of this case and decided to make

the reduction in child support effective as of July 16, 2015.

II.

Plaintiff now appeals from certain provisions in the orders

issued on July 16, 2015 and February 29, 2016. Specifically,

plaintiff makes five arguments contending that the Family Part

erred in (1) designating defendant as the parent of primary

residential custody; (2) not adjusting child support for

controlled expenses; (3) failing to terminate child support as of

the date plaintiff filed his motion (that is, January 12, 2014);

(4) not terminating his alimony obligation retroactively; and (5)

not awarding him attorney and expert fees. We reject these

arguments and affirm substantially for the reasons explained by

Judge Rafano in the written opinions he issued on July 16, 2015

5 A-3326-15T1
and February 29, 2016. We add a few comments focusing on our

standard of review.

Our scope of review of a Family Part decision is limited.

"Whether an alimony obligation should be modified based upon a

claim of changed circumstances rests within a Family Part judge's

sound discretion." Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17, 21 (App.

Div. 2006). Similarly, we review an application to modify a child

support obligation for abuse of discretion. See Pascale v.

Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 594 (1995) (explaining, "trial courts have

discretion in determining child support"). Generally, we will not

disturb the Family Part's decision on support obligations "unless

it is 'manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or clearly contrary to

reason or to other evidence, or the result of whim or caprice.'"

Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109, 116 (App. Div. 2012)

(quoting Foust v. Glaser, 340 N.J. Super. 312, 316 (App. Div.

2001)).

In reviewing an order entered after a fact-finding hearing,

we defer to the factual findings "supported by adequate,

substantial, credible evidence." Spangenberg v. Kolakowski, 442

N.J. Super. 529, 535 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting Gnall v. Gnall, 222

N.J. 414, 428 (2015)). Thus, reversal is proper only when the

trial court's factual findings are "so manifestly unsupported by

or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably

6 A-3326-15T1
credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice[.]" Ibid.

(quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65

N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). We review de novo a trial court's

determination on questions of law. Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. Super.

552, 568 (App. Div. 2013).

Regarding the effective date of the modification of

plaintiff's child support obligation, we note that

[n]o payment or installment of an order for
child support, or those portions of an order
which are allocated for child support
established prior to or subsequent to the
effective date of P.L. 1993, c. 45 ([N.J.S.A.]
2A:17-56.23(a)],[1] shall be retroactively
modified by the court except with respect to
the period during which there is 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:17-56.23a.]

The plain language of this statute prohibits retroactive

modification of a child support obligation to a date prior to the

mailing of the notice of motion for such a modification. "There

is no analogous statutory provision that prohibits retroactive

reduction of alimony payments." Walles v. Walles, 295 N.J. Super.

498, 514 (App. Div. 1996). With the exception of N.J.S.A. 2A:17-

56.23a, "the retroactivity decision is left to the sound discretion

1
This amendment took effect on February 18, 1993.

7 A-3326-15T1
of the trial judge." Ibid. (citing Brennan v. Brennan, 187 N.J.

Super. 352, 357 (App. Div. 1982)).

Here, the notice of motion was filed on January 12, 2014, and

the child support obligation was modified effective July 16, 2015,

by an order entered on February 29, 2016. Thus, the Chancery

Court's order did not violate the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2A:17-

56.23a and we discern no abuse of discretion in the decision to

establish July 16, 2015, as the effective date of the modification

of plaintiff's child support obligation.

Regarding plaintiff's request for counsel fees and costs, we

review a trial judge's decision on an application for fees under

an abuse of discretion standard. United Hearts v. Zahabian, 407

N.J. Super. 379, 390 (App. Div.) (citing Masone v. Levine, 382

N.J. Super. 181, 193 (App. Div. 2005)), certif. denied, 200 N.J.

367 (2009). Rule 5:3-5(c) provides that

[s]ubject to the provisions of [Rule] 4:42-
9(b), (c), and (d), the court in its
discretion may make an allowance, both
pendente lite and on final determination, to
be paid by any party to the action, including,
if deemed to be just, any party successful in
the action, on any claim for divorce,
dissolution of civil union, termination of
domestic partnership, nullity, support,
alimony, custody, parenting time, equitable
distribution, separate maintenance,
enforcement of agreements between spouses,
domestic partners, or civil union partners and
claims relating to family type matters
. . . . In determining the amount of the fee

8 A-3326-15T1
 award, the court should consider, in addition
to the information required to be submitted
pursuant to [Rule] 4:42-9, the following
factors: (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 both during and prior
to trial; (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 or to
compel discovery; and (9) any other factor
bearing on the fairness of an award.

Plaintiff argues that defendant acted in bad faith by pursuing

a plenary hearing "without a good faith basis." Plaintiff also

argues that defendant did not dispute that there had been changed

circumstances since the parties executed the PSA. Further,

plaintiff argues that the gross disparity in the parties' incomes

should have resulted in a settlement without the necessity of a

plenary hearing.

Judge Rafano, however, found that both parties had acted in

good faith in pursuing their positions. He stated that

[p]laintiff brought forth a claim for
reduction or termination of alimony on the
reasonable premise that he is making a salary
which is well below the amount he was making
at his previous job. Likewise, the [d]efendant
reasonably argued that she should retain the
benefit of the bargain struck in the parties'
judgment of divorce and questioned whether the

9 A-3326-15T1
 [p]laintiff had fully explored all options
before accepting his current job.

The court's conclusion that both parties had acted in good faith

was supported by substantial credible evidence in the record.

Having reached this conclusion, the court did not abuse its

discretion in declining to award counsel fees or costs to either

party.

In short, Judge Rafano considered and expressly addressed

each of the arguments that plaintiff now presents on appeal. The

facts found by Judge Rafano are supported by substantial credible

evidence in the record. Moreover, we discern no abuse of

discretion or error in Judge Rafano's application of the law to

the facts he found and the equities he considered.

Affirmed.

10 A-3326-15T1