Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lucia Nwosu-Sylvester, F/K/A Lucia Ejlofor v. Carlos John Ejiofor

November 29, 2012

LUCIA NWOSU-SYLVESTER, F/K/A LUCIA EJLOFOR, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
CARLOS JOHN EJIOFOR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, Docket No. FM 03-1513-05-Z.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted August 13, 2012 -

Before Judges Ashrafi and Hayden.

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, defendant Carlos John Ejiofor appeals from a September 3, 2010 Family Part order requiring him to pay fifty percent of the parties' children's medical expenses and fifty percent of the maintenance fees for the parties' timeshare. We affirm.

The record reflects that the parties were married in 1989 and had three children. They separated in 2004 and divorced in April 2007. Their final judgment of divorce (FJOD) incorporated an oral property settlement agreement (PSA) placed on the record in open court on March 15, 2007.

Since the FJOD, the parties have engaged in frequent litigation concerning their obligations under the PSA.

Pertinent to this appeal, on January 22, 2010, Judge Michael J. Haas ordered defendant to pay the oldest child's dental and medical expenses with plaintiff, after she paid the first $250 each year, "in proportion to their income as set forth in the FJOD."

Shortly thereafter, defendant filed a motion seeking an order to reduce child support and to compel plaintiff to produce the children for parenting time. Plaintiff filed a cross- motion, with several requests for relief, including an order compelling defendant to pay fifty percent of all three children's medical expenses and compelling defendant to pay fifty percent of the party's timeshare vacation weekly maintenance and to respond to the lawsuit concerning this timeshare.

On September 3, 2010, Judge Kenneth S. Domzalski granted his motion to compel visitation according to the terms of the PSA and denied defendant's motion to decrease child support. The judge also granted plaintiff's motion to order defendant to pay fifty percent of the children's medical expenses but required plaintiff to pay the first $250 annually and to consult with defendant on any medical expenses over $100. In deciding to order each party to pay fifty percent, the judge observed that, although the January 22, 2010 order had required that each party's share of medical expenses be in accordance with his or her income as stated in the PSA, the agreement did not contain this information. Further, the judge ordered defendant to pay fifty percent of the timeshare maintenance. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant raises the following contentions for our consideration.

POINT I - DECISION REACHED BY THE LOWER COURT THAT DEFENDANT/APPELLANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 50% OF UNREIMBURSED MEDICAL AND DENTAL FEES NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE FOR OUR DAUGHTER, [], AFTER THE APPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FIRST $250, FOR THE TIME PERIOD COMMENCING DECEMBER 14, 2009 THROUGH AND INCLUDING PRESENT DATE IS UNFAIR, A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND MISDIRECTION OF LAW.

POINT II - DECISION REACHED BY THE LOWER COURT THAT DEFENDANT/APPELLANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 50% OF UNREIMBURSED MEDICAL AND DENTAL FEES NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE FOR OUR DAUGHTER, [], AFTER APPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FIRST $250, FOR THE TIME PERIOD COMMENCING DECEMBER 14, 2009 THROUGH AND INCLUDING THE PRESENT DATE IS UNFAIR, A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND MISDIRECTION OF LAW.

POINT 3 - DECISION REACHED BY THE LOWER COURT THAT DEFENDANT/APPELLANT SHALL PAY 50% OF FUTURE UNREIMBURSED MEDICAL AND DENTAL FEES NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE FOR OUR THREE CHILDREN AFTER THE APPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.