On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, Docket No. FM-13-676-05.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued October 12, 2011 -
Before Judges Payne, Reisner and Hayden.
Defendant Reza Farzan appeals from an October 6, 2010 order of the Family Part.
We begin by briefly describing the background of this dispute. The parties were married in 1987 and divorced in 2009.
They have a son who was born in 1989 and a daughter born in 1994. When the parties divorced, they entered into a property settlement agreement (PSA) that was incorporated into the final divorce judgment dated June 25, 2009. In the PSA, they only provided for child support for their daughter, because their son was then twenty years old and attending college.*fn1 The son was not living with either parent at the time of the divorce, and he still does not live with either of them.
In the PSA, the parties agreed that they would both contribute to their children's college expenses to the extent they were financially able to do so, under the principles set forth in Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982), "or the law in effect at that time." The PSA provided that the parties' contributions to college expenses would be limited to "that amount not covered by grants, loans, scholarships, work study programs or other available financial aid and only after considering the child's ability to contribute to his/her own college education."
Child support for the daughter was set at $9880 a year. Defendant's alimony obligation to plaintiff was set at $38,000 a year, but that amount was temporarily reduced while defendant was unemployed. There is no dispute that he is currently employed and earns $2200 per week.
Following the divorce, defendant filed a series of post-judgment motions, seeking to require plaintiff to contribute to the son's support as well as other relief. The court denied defendant's first motion on March 26, 2010, and denied his second motion on June 18, 2010. In the order denying the second motion, the judge warned defendant that if he persisted in filing repetitive motions, unsupported by evidence, the court might require him to pay plaintiff's counsel fees for having to defend herself against those motions.
Nonetheless, defendant sought some of the same relief in the motion that gave rise to this appeal. In addition to seeking plaintiff's contribution to the son's college tuition, defendant asked the court to: (1) order plaintiff to provide proof that she was sick on June 18, 2010, the return date of the prior motion, at which she was represented by counsel; (2) order plaintiff to remove the son's name from any credit cards held in plaintiff's name; (3) order plaintiff not to add their daughter's name to her credit cards; (4) order plaintiff to upgrade their children's cell phones; (5) order plaintiff to provide proof that she actually paid for their daughter's camps, lessons, and orthodontics; (6) order plaintiff to produce copies of her 2009 federal and state income tax returns; (7) require plaintiff to pay the son $215.00 per week for certain living expenses since January 21, 2010; (8) issue a subpoena directed to plaintiff's tenant to establish the amount of the rent; and (9) require plaintiff to pay defendant one day's compensation. In a statement of reasons accompanying her October 6, 2010
order, and in her oral opinion, Judge Thornton explained that she denied defendant's motion because he once again failed to support his allegations with evidence. He did not produce legally competent proof of the son's college expenses, proof that the son needed financial support from his parents, or the amount of that alleged financial need. The judge found that defendant also failed to provide any evidentiary or legal basis for any of his other requests for relief. The ...