SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0973-15T3

LISA G. STROBEL, n/k/a

LISA G. TRAYNOR,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ROLF STROBEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted February 9, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Lihotz and Whipple.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, 

Docket No. FM-15-1200-02.

Law Offices of August J. Landi, attorney for 

appellant (Mr. Landi, on the brief).

Law Offices of Michele C. Verno, L.L.C., 

attorney for respondent (Ms. Verno, on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Rolf Strobel appeals from a June 19, 2015 order and 

an October 2, 2015 order denying reconsideration. For the reasons 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

June 6, 2017
2 A-0973-15T3

that follow, we are constrained to reverse and remand for a more 

thorough review of the child support calculation. 

Plaintiff, Lisa Strobel, and defendant were married in 

January 1994, and had two children. In November 2002, the parties 

divorced and entered into a settlement agreement incorporated into 

the final judgment of divorce. According to the agreement, 

defendant was to provide plaintiff with $108 per week in child 

support. Plaintiff's gross weekly income was calculated at $770, 

while defendant's gross weekly income was calculated at $1050. 

Thereafter the weekly child support increased to $147 per week to 

reflect cost of living adjustments. 

On March 19, 2015, the Ocean County Board of Social Services 

(OCBSS) filed a "Notice of Motion to Decrease Child Support 

Payments Based Upon Triennial Review."1 Because the last child 

support order had been entered almost three years prior, the order 

was eligible for a triennial review pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-

56.9(a). According to a certification from an attorney for OCBSS, 

under the recent child support guideline worksheet, child support 

should be increased to $256 per week, a 74% increase from the 

previous amount of child support. The notice of motion scheduled 

 

1 It appears the notice of motion erroneously stated it was to 

decrease child support, as the supporting documentation all 

reflect the OCBSS's recommendation to increase child support. 
3 A-0973-15T3

a hearing before a Child Support Hearing Officer on May 14, 2015. 

The parties received a notice of adjournment on April 29, 2015, 

advising the motion hearing had been rescheduled to May 28, 2015. 

On May 11, 2015, defendant filed a cross motion opposing the 

OCBSS motion made on behalf of plaintiff. Defendant requested 

income be imputed to plaintiff based upon her education, prior 

work history and ability to earn in accordance with New Jersey 

Department of Labor Occupations Wages as a Food Services Manager 

(her former position), arguing plaintiff is underemployed working

part-time as a school secretary. Defendant also requested 

additional relief not relevant to this appeal. A civil action 

summons for motion hearing directed the parties to appear before 

a judge on June 19, 2015. The parties were advised to bring their 

last three pay stubs and/or proof of other income and their most 

recent federal tax return. The parties subsequently received a 

letter from the OCBSS informing the office would not appear at the 

June 19 motion hearing, as both parties were represented by 

counsel. 

At the June 19, 2015 motion hearing, defendant contested the 

OCBSS calculation in its triennial review and asked the court to 

impute a higher income to plaintiff. Defendant also raised for 

the first time an error in the calculation of child support based 

on plaintiff's receipt of a health insurance credit for the 
4 A-0973-15T3

parties' two children because they were covered by her current

husband's health insurance. Because the latter issue was not 

raised in motion papers, the court only addressed the issue of 

income imputed by the OCBSS. 

The court contacted Dina Johnston, OCBSS employee and the

individual who handled the triennial review, and took telephonic 

testimony. Ms. Johnston explained OCBSS requested financial 

statements from both parties and their employers, and such

information was entered into the financial information sheet. 

Information provided by the parties was re-verified through 

Employer Verification Letters, as well as through searches from

the Department of Labor. Based upon the financial information 

collected, the OCBSS applied the child support guidelines. Once 

the OCBSS determined the proper amount, the parties received

determination letters, which provided the child support guidelines

and offered the parties the opportunity to challenge the finding. 

When a party does not consent, the OCBSS ordinarily sends the 

parties Case Information Statements (CIS) to be completed, and the 

OCBSS files a motion on the parties' behalf. 

Ms. Johnston testified both parties filled out a CIS. Ms. 

Johnston testified because defendant filed a motion seeking relief 

beyond the OCBSS child support determination, the motion proceeded

to a judge. Ms. Johnston explained OCBSS imputed income to
5 A-0973-15T3

plaintiff at $400 per week because she was working as a school 

secretary, part-time, earning approximately $10 an hour; 

therefore, had the capacity to work full time so imputed on a 

forty-hour workweek. The income for plaintiff was verified by her 

employer. 

After summarizing Ms. Johnston's testimony, the court was 

satisfied with the amount of child support OCBSS calculated and 

entered a final order granting OCBSS's application to increase 

child support to $256 per week based on plaintiff's imputed income 

of $400 per week. 

Defendant moved for reconsideration of the June 19, 2015

order, which the judge denied on October 2, 2015. In a written 

statement of reasons, the judge summarized Ms. Johnston's 

testimony regarding calculation of the weekly child support amount 

of $256. The judge considered the imputation of plaintiff's income 

appropriate based upon her work history, and the fact she is 

raising five school-aged children. The court did not agree

plaintiff was underemployed and found OCBSS properly imputed 

plaintiff's income as a full time school secretary. 

As to defendant's argument regarding the children's health 

insurance premium, the court reviewed and found plaintiff's 

current spouse provides insurance for all five children, including 

defendant's two children. Therefore, plaintiff was entitled to a 
6 A-0973-15T3

fifty-seven dollar credit for the cost of the parties' two 

children, and when completing the Other Dependent Deduction 

worksheet to account for plaintiff's support for her other three 

children, plaintiff's current spouse was entitled to an eightysix dollar credit for their insurance costs.

Defendant argued OCBSS improperly used a sole parenting 

worksheet as opposed to the shared parenting worksheet. When the 

parties financial information was calculated, the program

automatically changed from the shared parenting worksheet to the 

sole parenting worksheet because plaintiff's "parent of primary 

residence [PPR] weekly household net income plus the sharedparenting child support award is less than two times the U.S. 

poverty guidelines for the number of persons in the household and 

thus failed the PPR income test." The court ran its own child 

support guidelines using the shared parenting worksheet and noted 

a nineteen-dollar difference. The court found the nineteen-dollar 

difference in defendant's child support obligations under the sole 

parenting worksheet versus the shared parenting worksheet was 

"negligible based upon the parties' financial status." Therefore, 

the court denied defendant's application to vacate the June 19, 

2015 order. This appeal followed. 

On appeal, defendant argues the Family Part judge erred 

affirming a triennial review of child support by an administrative 
7 A-0973-15T3

clerk specialist without benefit of a review by a hearing officer 

and without benefit of a CIS exchange. He also argues the judge 

erred not taking testimony on the issues raised and in not creating 

a record sufficient for appellate review on the merits. We agree.

"An award of support is within the discretion of the trial 

court. It will not be disturbed unless it is 'manifestly 

unreasonable, arbitrary, or clearly contrary to reason or to the 

evidence, or the result of whim or caprice.'" Raynor v. Raynor, 

319 N.J. Super. 591, 605 (App. Div. 1999) (quoting DeVita v. 

DeVita, 145 N.J. Super. 120, 123 (App. Div. 1976)). Findings by 

a Family Part judge will be binding on appeal when supported by 

adequate, substantial, and credible evidence. Cesare v. Cesare, 

154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998). We accord deference to a Family Judge's 

fact-finding. Id. at 413.

Here, although the trial judge was "satisfied" with OCBSS's 

child support calculation, we are not. In particular, there is 

no explanation whether the amount previously imputed to plaintiff 

by agreement of $770 per week was ever considered by the OCBSS 

when it conducted its review. In his statement of reasons on 

reconsideration, the judge made extensive findings regarding 

plaintiff's current earning capacity without benefit of a

necessary hearing on the contested issue of whether changed

circumstances warrant a modification of the agreed upon imputed 
8 A-0973-15T3

income. See Glass v. Glass, 366 N.J. Super. 357, 373 (App. Div. 

2004) (finding settlement agreements "not only resolve[] issues 

of custody and visitation but financial matters including 

equitable distribution and spousal and child support. No one 

element stands alone and can be read without reference or 

consideration of the others."); see also Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J.

139, 157 (1980) ("The party seeking modification has the burden 

of showing such 'changed circumstances' as would warrant relief 

from the support or maintenance provisions involved."). Moreover,

we direct the difference in defendant's child support obligations 

under the sole parenting worksheet versus the shared parenting 

worksheet must be corrected in the child support order to reflect 

the accurate obligation. See Benisch v. Benisch, 347 N.J. Super.

393, 395-96 (App. Div. 2002) ("Under the [Child Support] 

Guidelines, the designation of PPR and P[arent of] A[lternative] 

R[esidence] is not an insignificant matter. It has tangible, 

monetary effects."). 

Reversed and remanded consistent with this opinion.