On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County, No. FM-16-893-98.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted November 5, 2008
Before Judges Wefing and Yannotti.
Defendant appeals from a post-judgment order entered January 29, 2008, which denied his request to be reimbursed for child support he had previously paid on behalf of his daughter Sarah. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm in part and remand for further proceedings.
The parties were divorced pursuant to a judgment of divorce entered in June 2000. They had been married for nearly twenty-five years and had three children during the marriage--Joseph, born in April 1978, and twenty-two years old at the time of his parents' divorce; Sarah, born in August 1980, and nearly twenty years old at the time of her parents' divorce; and Joshua, now deceased.
In April 1999, nearly a year before the divorce proceedings were concluded, the court entered an order declaring Sarah to be emancipated. The court appended to its order a statement of reasons, which noted that the discord between her parents led Sarah to drop out of high school, move into an apartment and become employed. The order noted that Sarah was an excellent student who wanted to finish high school and attend college. The court noted in its statement of reasons that she could make an application in the future declaring that she was not emancipated. There was no appeal from that order.
Defendant sought to have Joseph emancipated in conjunction with the divorce proceedings, but his application was denied, Joseph being a full-time student at William Paterson University at the time. Defendant was ordered to pay $231 per week in child support for Joseph, through the probation department. Based upon the earlier order emancipating Sarah, the judgment of divorce made no provision for child support for her.
A probation review hearing was conducted in October 2002; neither party appeared. An order was entered which indicated that Sarah was not emancipated. The order, however, stated that defendant's child support payment was $841 per week. The record before us contains no explanation of the $610 difference.*fn1
The next review hearing occurred in March 2004. That order declared that Joseph, who had by then graduated from college, was emancipated, but it ordered child support to continue for Sarah, noting that she was a full-time college student.
In February 2007 another probation review was conducted. The order directed that child support continue for Sarah for she was still a full-time student. It referred to weekly child support of $874, together with arrears of $15 per week, for a gross weekly payment of $889.
Defendant contended he was not notified of any of these hearings and did not attend any of them. He did, however, continue to pay regular child support in accordance with the judgment of divorce.
Another hearing was held in July 2007, which defendant did attend and at which he raised the question of whether Sarah had ever been declared unemancipated. By the time of that hearing, Sarah was nearly twenty-seven years old. She had resumed living with her mother and was a full-time student, nearing her graduation from William Paterson University. The trial court entered an order in September 2007 staying defendant's child support obligations while the parties addressed the question whether Sarah had, in fact, been unemancipated by court order at any point.
The parties submitted briefs and the trial court conducted a plenary hearing in January 2008. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court entered an order which declared Sarah emancipated as of September 11, 2007, the date upon which it had ordered a stay of child support payments, but denied defendant's request to be reimbursed for the child support he had paid since 2004. The order did not set the amount of defendant's arrearages, but rather ordered the probation department to conduct an audit of ...