### RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3822- 21 PATRICIA R. AUSLANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Respondent,

v. ROBERT AUSLANDER, Defendant-Respondent/ Cross-Appellant.

_____ ______________________

Submitted January 30, 2024

– Decided February 7, 2024 Before Judges Haas and Puglisi. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FM- 14

- 1279

- 14. Speck Law Offices, LLC, attorneys for appellant/cro ssrespondent (Michael R. Speck, on the briefs).Berse Law, LLC, attorneys for respondent/crossappellant (Samuel J. Berse, on the briefs).

PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.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 parti es in the case and its use in other cases is limite d. R. 1:36- 3.2 A- 3822

- 21

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintif f Patricia R. Auslander appeals from the Family Part's July 1, 2022 order, which increased defendant Richard Auslander's child support obligation to $1, 908 per week for the parties' four children. Defendant has filed a cross-appeal from the same order. The parties both argue that the order must be reversed and remanded because the trial court did not make any findings of fact or co nclusions of law explaining the basis for its child support calculation. We agree. The parties were married in 2002 and they divorced in 2016. In 2020, defendant's alimony obligation to plaintiff ceased under the terms of their matrimonial settlement agreement. On August 28, 20 20, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an increase in defendant's $880 per month child s upport obligation. On December 1, 2020, the trial court found that the ce ssation of alimony constituted a change of circumstances warranting a review of ch ild support. The court scheduled a case management conference in order to set the terms of financial discovery.

The reafter, the case slowly proceeded through the liti gation process. On May 12, 2021, the trial court increased child suppo rt to $451 per week on an interim basis retroactive to December 1, 2020. The parties filed more motions ,3 A- 3822

- 21

and the court entered additional orders on a number of topics. At the end of 2021, a different trial judge took over the managem ent of the case. In March 2022, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a final child support order. The trial court ordered the parties to produce addi tional financial information. In May 2022, plaintiff asked for a plenary hearing and counsel fees. The court denied this motion but did not provide a statement of reasons for its decision. Finally, on July 1, 2022, the trial court issued t he order that is the subject of this appeal. In paragraph one of the order, the court stated:

Upon the [c]ourt's review of the parties' updated earnings information, [d]efendant will now pay $1,908.00/week in base child support via Morris County Probation, effective the date of this order. The relevant child support guidelines worksheets are attached. The [c]ourt used [d]efendant's Social Security Earnings Statement which states $657,332.0 0 in 2021 Medicare wages ($12,641.00/week), and used [p]laintiff's Social Security Earnings Statement wh ich states $31,475.00 in 2021 Medicare wages ($605.00/week). The [c]ourt determined it was appropriate to utilize the guidelines to set an amo unt for base child support, understanding that this is an a bove the guidelines case. This was the only explanation provided by the cour t for its ruling. The four child support worksheets were appended to the order. It appears that the court simply added the child support number for eac h child together to arrive at the new $1,908 per month obligation.4 A- 3822

- 21

As the parties argue on appeal, this unexplained c alculation cannot stand. Where, as here, the parties' combined income levels exceed the maximum child support guidelines, "the maximum amount provided fo r in the guidelines should be 'supplemented' by an additional award determined through application of the statutory factors in N.J.S.A. 2A:34 -23(a)" in the court's discretion. Isaacson v. Isaacson, 348 N.J. Super. 560, 581 (App. Div. 2002)

. "In the context of highincome parents whose ability to pay is not an issue , 'the dominant guideline for

consideration is the reasonable needs of the childr en, which must be addressed in the context of the standard of living of the par ties.'" Strahan v. Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. 298, 307 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Isaa cson, 348 N.J. Super. at 581). To determine the needs of a child in a high-income family, a balance must be struck between reasonable needs, which reflect lifestyle opportunities, while at the same time precluding an inappropriate windfall to the ch ild or even in some cases infringing on the legitimate right of either parent to determine the appropriate lifes tyle of a child. This latter consideration involves a care ful balancing of interests reflecting that a child's entitlement to share in a parent's good fortune doe s not deprive either parent of the right to participate i n the development of an appropriate value system for a ch ild. This is a critical tension that may develop between competing parents. Ultimately, the needs of a chil d in such circumstances also calls to the fore the best interests of a child.5 A- 3822

- 21 [Isaacson, 348 N.J. Super. at 582.] Here, the trial court's terse one-paragraph explana tion of its calculation fails to demonstrate that it applied these principl es in determining the amount of child support due the children. While the court co mpleted four standard child support worksheets, there is no evidence that it co nsidered any of the statutory criteria for child support as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. The court also failed to make any findings concerning the reasonable need s of the children. The court did not explain its rationale for its determination nor did it address any of the parties' competing arguments.

Rule 1:7 -4(a) clearly states that a trial "court shall, by an opinion or memorandum decision, either written or oral, find t he facts and state its conclusions of law thereon . . . on every motion d ecided by a written order that is appealable as of right[.]" See Shulas v. Estabr ook, 385 N.J. Super. 91, 96 (App. Div. 2006) (requiring an adequate explanation o f basis for court's action). Here, the court provided no reasons for the July 1, 2022 order. Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980) (requiring cou rt to clearly state its factual findings and correlate them with the relevant legal conclusions). As a result, we have no way of knowing why it determined that $1,90 8 per week in child support was appropriate.6 A- 3822

- 21

In addition, the trial court did not explain why it did not make the new obligation retroactive to August 28, 2020, the date plaintiff filed her original motion; December 1, 2020, the date the court set in its May 12, 2021 order for the commencement of the interim modification; or so me other date. The court failed to set the amount of any arrears due plainti ff. The trial court also did not address plaintiff's request for a plenary hearing o r the parties' applications for

counsel fees. "Meaningful appellate review is inhibited unless t he [trial court] sets forth the reasons for [its] opinion." Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. at 310 (quoting Salch v. Salch, 240 N.J. Super. 441, 443 (App. Div. 1990)). The failure to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law "'constitutes a dis service to the litigants, the attorneys[,] and the appellate court.'" Curtis , 83 N.J. at 569-70 (quoting Kenwood Assocs. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 141 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 1976)). The trial court's complete failure to provide the finding s of fact and conclusions of law required by Rule 1:7 -4(a) necessitates a remand for fulfillment of the trial court's obligation in this regard. We recognize the difficulties the Family Part faces, day in and day out, o f dealing with large volumes of contested matters, pa rticularly in high-conflict matrimonial cases such as this one. Litigants may deluge the court with7 A- 3822

- 21

complicated filings, prayers for relief, and opposi tion papers. Nevertheless, despite these pressures, trial courts must endeavor to make the necessary rulings on a timely basis and provide ample reasons for the ir decisions to guide the parties and also to enable meaningful appellate rev iew if it is sought. In some instances, more detailed reasoning might discourage parties from moving for reconsideration or pursuing appeals, thereby saving time and expense in the long run. It is not clear why this particular case went amiss, but a remand will provide an opportunity for prompt corrective action to be u ndertaken. Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdict ion.