NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1440-15T2
D.L.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
W.L.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Argued March 21, 2017 — Decided April 7, 2017
Before Judges Koblitz and Rothstadt.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County,
Docket No. FM-20-14-05.
Philip B. Vinick argued the cause for
appellant.
Adelaide Riggi, argued the cause for
respondent (Snyder Sarno D'Aniello Maceri Da
Costa, LLC, attorneys; Ms. Riggi, of counsel
and on brief; Sarah Davis, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant W.L. appeals from an October 20, 2015 Family Part
order, entered after affording oral argument, finding that he did
not make a prima facie showing of substantial changed circumstances
warranting a review of his current child support obligation of
$331 per week, $17,212 per year, for his disabled adult son.
Defendant also pays 80 percent of their son's unreimbursed medical
expenses. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by
Judge Theresa E. Mullen in her statement of reasons attached to
the order.
Defendant, a seventy-four-year-old licensed psychologist who
is a sole proprietor of his own practice, has an ongoing obligation
to support his fifty-year-old son who suffers from paranoid
schizophrenia and was adjudicated permanently disabled by the
Social Security Administration in 1989. Defendant is remarried
and has a seventeen-year-old daughter with his second wife. He
claims that managed care has precipitated the permanent decline
of his income from $150,000 in 2006 to $36,000 in 2014 because it
limits both the amount of money earned per appointment and the
number of sessions his patients may attend. According to
defendant, managed care reduced his $150 to $200 per session fee
to between $60 to $90 per session.
In June 2006 the parties stipulated, after testimony had been
elicited in a plenary hearing, that defendant earned $150,000. In
2015, defendant moved to reduce or terminate his child support
payments due to a change in circumstances. Contrary to Rule 5:5-
2 A-1440-15T2
4(a), he did not attach his 2006 Case Information Statement (CIS)
to his application, although he did provide a current CIS and tax
returns reflecting that he paid himself an income of $37,169 in
2013, made mandatory and discretionary IRA withdrawals and
received $26,685 from Social Security. On his current CIS he
listed his expenses as approximately $73,000, but explains in his
appellate brief that, contrary to the CIS instructions, those
include the expenses for his wife and daughter. Defendant's 2014
business tax return reflects more than $112,000 in business
expenses. His wife earned approximately $78,000 that year.
Plaintiff argued that, based on defendant's submissions, he earned
a real income of at least $132,832, without counting the cash
income she alleged he received.
Quoting Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17, 23 (App. Div.
2006), Judge Mullen stated that as a self-employed obligor
defendant's income should be viewed "more expansively" because he
is in "a better position to present an unrealistic picture of his
or her actual income than a W-2 earner." She noted that although
defendant claimed $37,169 as income on his CIS, his business tax
deductions include his benefits of $21,487, which were "for himself
as he is his only employee." The judge also mentioned that
defendant's personal expenses totaled more than $6066 per month.
3 A-1440-15T2
Finally, the judge stated that plaintiff was not required to
provide any financial documentation "until [d]efendant meets his
burden to prove a changed circumstance." See Donnelly v. Donnelly,
405 N.J. Super. 117, 132 (App. Div. 2009) (citing Lepis v. Lepis,
83 N.J. 139, 157 (1980)).
When we "review[] decisions granting or denying applications
to modify child support, we examine whether, given the facts, the
trial judge abused his or her discretion." J.B. v. W.B., 215 N.J.
305, 325-26 (2013) (quoting Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109,
116 (App. Div. 2012)). The Family Part's decision should not be
"disturbed unless it is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or
clearly contrary to reason or to other evidence, or the result of
whim or caprice." Jacoby, supra, 427 N.J. Super. at 116 (quoting
Foust, supra, 340 N.J. Super. at 315-16).
Judge Mullen emphasized that determining changed
circumstances "necessarily entails knowing the starting point
before the change, that is, the point from which the change can
be measured." Foust, supra, 340 N.J. Super. at 316. Defendant
did not provide Judge Mullen with a transcript of the 2006
testimony, nor any prior CIS from any of his seven prior motions
to reduce support or any other expense or tax information for
2006. If, indeed, his 2006 CIS was lost, he should have stated
his efforts to obtain it.
4 A-1440-15T2
We do not intend by this opinion to preclude defendant from
submitting another application to reduce child support, with the
proper information and attachments to explain any gaps or
insufficiencies, which he failed to supply in his April 2015
application.
Affirmed.
5 A-1440-15T2