NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted April 30, 2013
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, Docket No. FM-13-0902-02.
Drazin and Warshaw, P.C., attorneys for appellant (Vincent L. Stripto, on the brief).
Brian P. Latimer, attorney for respondent.
Before Judges Hayden and Hoffman.
Plaintiff Jayne Licata appeals from the February 10, 2012 and March 5, 2012 Family Part orders deciding cross-motions regarding various post-judgment issues. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.
The parties were married in 1984 and had two children, a daughter born in 1991 and a son born in 1993. Their marriage was dissolved by a judgment of divorce from bed and board on March 24, 2003, which included a property settlement agreement (PSA) dated March 13, 2003. An absolute judgment of divorce was entered in 2007.
The PSA provided for plaintiff to receive support of $1, 000 per week as follows: $600 in permanent alimony, plus $300 in term alimony for four years,  plus $100 in child support for the two children. The PSA provided that when the term alimony ended in 2007 the parties would adjust child support "to conform to the child support guidelines." The support was based upon defendant's income of $155, 000 and plaintiff's imputed income of $20, 800.
The parties did not recalculate child support in 2007 with plaintiff claiming that she was intimidated by defendant. In 2009, plaintiff retained an attorney, who obtained copies of defendant's tax returns; however, plaintiff took no further action at that time, without explanation.
Finally, in November 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to recalculate defendant's child support obligation. As part of the same application, plaintiff sought to compel defendant to provide copies of his 2009 and 2010 tax returns, an updated case information statement (CIS), and a copy of defendant's mortgage application for his current home. Plaintiff further requested the court appoint "a forensic accountant to undertake a cash flow analysis" for defendant's business, where plaintiff claimed that defendant was hiding money. Plaintiff also sought to compel defendant to pay his proportionate share of money she had spent for the children for the previous eight years.
The judge ruled that the requests for the tax returns and CIS were moot as defendant provided them with his moving papers. The judge declined to order the production of defendant's mortgage application or appointment of a forensic accountant. The judge recalculated child support retroactive to the date plaintiff's motion was argued, but declined to make it retroactive to 2007, finding that plaintiff had been "less than diligent in seeking a modification" and had "slept on her rights." Given the length of time involved, the judge concluded it would be "unfair" to enforce the provision retroactively; he therefore ordered defendant to pay his share of the children's expenses according to the PSA going forward but declined to order any past payment, finding ...