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.

Tamis v. Goldklang

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

September 3, 2013

CYNTHIA STEWART TAMIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KENNETH GOLDKLANG, Defendant-Respondent.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted August 28, 2013

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FM-02-1545-98.

Santo J. Bonanno, attorney for appellant.

Michael J. Pasquale, attorney for respondent.

Before Judges Waugh and Haas.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Cynthia Stewart Tamis appeals the Family Part's December 16, 2011 order granting a cross-motion filed by defendant Kenneth Goldklang. The order emancipates their daughter following her graduation from college. We affirm.

I.

We discern the following facts and procedural history from the record on appeal.

The parties were married in December 1984 and divorced in October 1998. They have one daughter, who was born in September 1990. Both parties have remarried. The record reflects that both parties had college and post-graduate educations.

The property settlement agreement (PSA) attached to the judgment of divorce provided for the daughter's custody and support. It gave Tamis custody of the daughter, with parenting time to be arranged between the parties, and required Goldklang to pay child support. The PSA also required each party to maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of $250, 000 for the daughter's benefit until she became emancipated.

The PSA specifically addressed the issue of the daughter's education, under the heading "COLLEGE AND POST-HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION." The parties agreed to "be responsible for all such educational expenses, " based upon "their respective financial abilities to do so at the time of the expense" (emphasis added).

At the time the present dispute arose, Goldklang was required to pay for thirty percent of his daughter's unreimbursed college expenses. Tamis engaged in considerable motion practice seeking to enforce Goldklang's obligations with respect to the daughter, although we note that there were also problems concerning Tamis's compliance with ...


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.