SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-1346-22 

MICHAEL A. MCDOWALL, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

MAUREEN MCDOWALL, 

 Defendant-Respondent. 

___________________________

Submitted January 30, 2024 – Decided April 4, 2024

Before Judges Haas and Puglisi. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, 

Docket No. FM-02-0178-17.

Michael A. McDowall, appellant pro se. 

Gomperts, McDermott & Von Ellen, LLC, attorneys for

respondent (Marisa Lepore Hovanec, of counsel and on

the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-1346-22

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Michael A. McDowall

appeals from certain provisions of the Family Part's October 4, 2022 order 

granting defendant Maureen McDowall's motions for enforcement and 

reimbursement and denying plaintiff's motions to modify custody, parenting 

time and child support. We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth by

Judge Nina C. Remson in her oral opinion. 

 Plaintiff and defendant married in 1998 and divorced in 2017. Their dual 

judgment of divorce incorporated a comprehensive marital settlement agreement 

(MSA) that resolved the outstanding issues between the parties. 

The MSA provided the parties shared joint legal custody of their two sons, 

T.M. and R.M., with defendant the parent of primary residence and plaintiff the 

parent of alternate residence. Plaintiff had parenting time on alternating 

weekends, alternating Tuesdays and Thursdays, and an additional Wednesday 

each month. 

The MSA provided for the allocation of T.M.'s ice hockey expenses after 

the 2017-2018 season. Tuition, club dues and fees were to be paid by plaintiff 

seventy-five percent and defendant twenty-five percent; and all travel and 

equipment costs were to be paid by plaintiff. 
3 A-1346-22

 The MSA also provided for the allocation of the children's health 

insurance and medical expenses. After defendant's payment of the first $250 of 

uncovered health costs per year, per child, the parties were to split the remaining 

costs pursuant to their pro rata share calculated in the child support guidelines, 

which was plaintiff's sixty percent to defendant's forty percent. 

 The MSA provided for allocation of the costs associated with the marital 

residence. Commencing May 1, 2017, defendant assumed financial 

responsibility for the residence, contingent on plaintiff's timely payment of 

alimony and child support. Defendant was also responsible for nominal repairs 

totaling less than $100 per occurrence. The parties were to split the costs of any 

repair exceeding that amount pursuant to their pro rata share calculated in the 

child support guidelines. 

 Defendant filed a motion seeking enforcement of certain provisions of the 

MSA, to which plaintiff filed a cross-motion. On October 7, 2020, the court 

entered an order that required, in pertinent part, plaintiff to reimburse defendant 

for his sixty percent share of R.M.'s orthodontia, $77.50 for R.M.'s 2019 baseball 

fees, and $1,137 for home repairs. Although plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of 

the order, it was dismissed. 
4 A-1346-22

Defendant filed another motion requesting enforcement of certain 

provisions of the October 7, 2020 order, in addition to reimbursement of other 

expenses. Plaintiff opposed defendant's motion and cross-moved to modify 

custody and parenting time and recalculate child support and alimony. 

 Judge Remson ordered the parties to attend mediation, which was 

unsuccessful. On October 4, 2022, the judge heard argument on the motions, 

during which both parties presented their proofs through counsel. 

 Relevant to this appeal, the judge granted defendant's request for 

enforcement of the October 2020 order compelling plaintiff to pay sixty percent 

of R.M.'s orthodontic expenses and ordered plaintiff to pay defendant $3,056 

within thirty days of the order (paragraphs one and two of the order). She also 

granted defendant's request for enforcement of the October 2020 order 

compelling plaintiff to pay $77.50 for R.M.'s 2019 baseball fees and $1,137 for 

home repairs and ordered plaintiff to pay these amounts within thirty days of the 

order (paragraphs nineteen and twenty). The judge further granted defendant's 

request for reimbursement of plumbing expenses totaling $850 and ordered 

plaintiff to pay his sixty percent share, which was $510, within thirty days of 

the order (paragraph eighteen). The judge denied without prejudice plaintiff's 

requests to modify custody, parenting time and child support (paragraphs nine 
5 A-1346-22

and ten) because he failed to demonstrate a prima facie showing of changed 

circumstances to revisit custody and parenting time. Plaintiff's request to 

modify child support was also denied because it was premised on a change in 

the parenting time schedule. 

 This appeal follows, wherein plaintiff appeals these paragraphs of the 

order.1 On appeal, plaintiff presents the following issues for our consideration: 

POINT I 

TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE 

DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVIDE THE PROPER 

DOCUMENTATION FOR PROOF OF PAYMENT. 

POINT II 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT 

BECAUSE THE COURT MISCALCULATED THE 

AMOUNTS DUE FROM PROOF OF PAYMENTS 

PROVIDED. 

POINT III 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT 

BECAUSE DEFENDANT RECEIVED AN 

INSURANCE PAYMENT FOR REPAIRS OF THE 

HOME IN EXCESS OF THE PLUMBER BILL. 

1

 Defendant's brief suggests plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from different 

paragraphs of the October 4, 2022 order, and then failed to brief those issues. 

We do not concur with this reading of the notice of appeal and brief. 
6 A-1346-22

POINT IV 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT 

BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVIDE THE 

PROPER DOCUMENTATION FOR PROOF OF 

PAYMENTS TOTALING IN EXCESS OF $250.00. 

POINT V 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING 

INCREASE IN PARENTING TIME AS THE TRIAL 

COURT DID NOT MAKE AN EFFORT TO MAKE A 

FINDING OF WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN 

SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES 

AND DID NOT PROVIDE [PLAINTIFF] AN 

OPPORTUNITY FOR A PLENARY HEARING. 

Our scope of review of Family Part orders is narrow. Cesare v. Cesare, 

154 N.J. 394, 411 (1998). We "accord particular deference to the Family Part 

because of its 'special jurisdiction and expertise' in family matters," Harte v.

Hand, 433 N.J. Super. 457, 461 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting id. at 412), and we

will not overturn the Family Part's findings of fact when they are "supported by

adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Cesare, 154 N.J. at 412. A reviewing 

court will also not disturb the Family Part's factual findings and legal 

conclusions that flow from them unless they are "so manifestly unsupported by

or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence 

as to offend the interests of justice." Ricci v. Ricci, 448 N.J. Super. 546, 564
7 A-1346-22

(App. Div. 2017) (quoting Elrom v. Elrom, 439 N.J. Super. 424, 433 (App. Div. 

2015)). We review a Family Part's legal determinations de novo. Id. at 565.

Having considered defendant's contentions in light of the applicable law, 

we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a 

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(e). The judge's factual findings regarding 

documentation of payments are supported in the record; to the extent plaintiff 

seeks to challenge the enforcement of a prior order by attacking the prior order, 

he is out of time to do so. See R. 2:4-1. We also agree with the judge's finding 

plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie showing of changed circumstances that 

would have warranted a plenary hearing regarding modification of his parenting 

time. 

Affirmed.