SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1766-17T3

PAMELA DUMCHUS,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM DUMCHUS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Submitted October 30, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Rothstadt and Natali.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, 

Docket No. FM-12-0410-11.

Lum, Drasco & Positan, LLC, attorneys for appellant 

(Gina M. Sorge, of counsel and on the briefs).

LaRocca, Hornik, Rosen, Greenberg & Patti, LLC, 

attorneys for respondent (Albertina Webb and Gregory 

L. Grossman, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

February 8, 2019
2

A-1766-17T3

In this post-judgment dissolution matter, defendant William Dumchus 

appeals from the Family Part's November 17, 2017 order enforcing a settlement 

agreement he and plaintiff Pamela Dumchus reached through voluntary 

mediation. On appeal, defendant contends that the order was unsupported by 

the facts in the record and was based upon legal errors, including the motion

judge's failure to consider whether the agreement was "fair and just," and the 

judge reaching the conclusion that "full disclosure of financial information was 

unnecessary or irrelevant." Defendant also argues that the judge erred by 

denying his request for a modification of his alimony obligation and failing to 

direct that the garnishment upon defendant's wages be terminated upon his 

payment of the agreed upon "lump sum amount" necessary to satisfy his alimony 

obligation. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and remand in part for 

the limited purpose of terminating the garnishment upon defendant's payment of 

the agreed upon amount to satisfy his alimony obligation.

The facts derived from the motion record are summarized as follows. The 

parties were married in 1985. Their marriage ended with the September 9, 2011 

entry of a final judgment of divorce (JOD) that incorporated the terms of their 

"Divorce Settlement Agreement" (DSA). The DSA required defendant to pay 

$7500 per month in permanent alimony through wage garnishment. It provided 
3

A-1766-17T3

for termination of alimony upon "the death of either party" or plaintiff's 

"remarriage or cohabitation . . . ." Defendant was also required to maintain life 

insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 for plaintiff's benefit to secure his 

alimony obligation. Finally, the DSA required the parties to attempt to resolve 

any disputes "by negotiation and agreement before using the court for any 

determination."

A dispute arose between the parties regarding defendant's failure to pay 

alimony. In an effort to resolve that dispute, and at defendant's request, the 

parties and their attorneys participated in a mediation with an agreed upon 

mediator. The mediation was successful and on August 10, 2017, the parties 

entered into a written agreement (mediation agreement) that by its express terms 

was a "full and final settlement" of their dispute. The mediation agreement 

provided that except as addressed in the agreement, the terms of the DSA 

remained in "full force and effect."

The mediation agreement required defendant to pay to plaintiff within ten 

days a lump sum of $500,000 "tax free" in full satisfaction of his prospective 

alimony obligation under the DSA. Plaintiff agreed to accept that amount in 

satisfaction of defendant's $90,000 per year obligation going forward and to 

waive any claim she had to the "approximately $16,000 in alimony arrearages"
4

A-1766-17T3

that existed at that time. The mediation agreement also required defendant to 

maintain $250,000 in life insurance for plaintiff's benefit even though his 

alimony terminated upon payment of the lump sum. 

When defendant did not make the lump sum payment, in October 2017, 

plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the mediation agreement and defendant crossmoved to vacate the agreement and modify or terminate his alimony obligation 

under the DSA, or for the judge to schedule a plenary hearing. In her supporting 

certification, plaintiff explained that shortly after the parties entered the 

mediation agreement, defendant obtained new counsel and sought to modify the 

agreement. Plaintiff rejected defendant's proposal to enter into negotiations 

about the mediation agreement that they had just entered into in August. She 

noted that defendant benefited under the mediation agreement by her giving up 

the right to $90,000 per year in permanent alimony in exchange for the $500,000 

one-time payment. 

In his certification, defendant explained that in 2014 he changed positions 

and was currently employed as a "branch investment manager at Morgan 

Stanley," and since 2015, his compensation that was primarily paid through 

bonuses had declined. He also described health issues he began to encounter in 

2015, which he stated "impacted [his] ability to work." As a result, he could not 
5

A-1766-17T3

satisfy his alimony obligation, so the parties decided to mediate "the issues of 

alimony and consideration of modification and reduction, if not termination, of 

[his D]SA alimony obligations." However, the parties never exchanged 

financial information prior to the mediation, but "[i]t was clear [his] total

earnings were insufficient to meet the $7500 monthly garnishment."

Defendant stated that despite plaintiff's arguments to the contrary, he paid 

almost all of his alimony obligation for each year since the divorce and that in 

any event, the mediation agreement did not provide him with any benefit going 

forward and was entered into without knowledge of important information. He

stated the following:

The [mediation agreement] was not subject to

consideration of the total alimony payments that I had 

made to date or consideration of my remaining 

obligations in accordance with the [D]SA. Paragraph

4(A) of the [D]SA states my obligation to "secure [my] 

alimony obligation" by maintaining a life insurance

policy in the face amount of $1,000,000 naming 

[plaintiff] as a sole beneficiary. On August 10, 2017, 

my alimony payments exceeded $516,000. As of 

September 15, 2017, I paid some $532,000, 

approximately $8100 short of fulfilling my six (6) year 

total alimony payment obligation of $540,000. My 

execution of the [D]SA was without consideration of a 

remaining [D]SA alimony payment obligation of 

approximately $460,000. When I signed the [mediation 

agreement], I was also unaware of the advice I

subsequently received from my counsel with regard to

changes to the law governing alimony in September of 
6

A-1766-17T3

2014, including consideration of "retirement" and the 

termination of alimony upon reaching the age of 67. 

Notably, my [D]SA alimony obligations through age 

67, total $1,000,000.

Based on those reasons, defendant asked that the court not enforce the

mediation agreement. He also asked that his alimony be reduced because of his 

reduction in earnings, which he described as having been approximately 

$500,000 in 2015, $432,000 in 2016 and, including disability payments, 

$418,000 in 2017. He claimed that these amounts did not take into account the 

payments he made to "Morgan Stanley in accordance with the promissory notes 

above and beyond the substantial sums withheld from [his] earnings for Federal 

and State taxes." According to defendant, after deducting these payments, his 

net income for 2017 was $34,650.26. He also revealed that he had $27,000 in 

unearned income and his monthly expenses including alimony were 

approximately $15,000.

Plaintiff filed a reply certification in which she argued that defendant was 

ultimately seeking "a second bite [at] the apple" with regard to the matters the 

parties resolved through the DSA and mediation agreement. She noted that 

neither party asked for any documentation and entered into the agreement with 

the advice of counsel without any exchange of information. Moreover, 

disclosure would not have made a difference since it was only defendant's
7

A-1766-17T3

income that was at issue and he was fully aware of his situation when he entered 

into the mediation agreement.

Plaintiff also challenged defendant's claims about the decline in his 

income. She stated that during the marriage he earned approximately $350,000 

annually, which supported both of their lifestyles. Further, as to claims about 

his medical condition, plaintiff observed that defendant did not attach any 

confirming medical records or reports.

In accordance with Rule 5:5-4(e), the motion judge issued a tentative 

decision and order on November 14, 2017, granting plaintiff's motion and 

denying defendant's cross-motion. The parties reviewed the order and withdrew 

their request for oral argument, and the judge entered the order on November

17, 2017. 

The motion judge set forth his findings of fact and conclusions of law 

within the body of the order. The judge found that the parties voluntarily 

participated in mediation at defendant's request with independent counsel. 

Relying upon the Supreme Court's holdings in Nolan v. Lee Ho, 120 N.J. 465, 

473 (1990) and Willingboro Mall, Ltd. v. 240/242 Franklin Ave., LLC, 215 N.J. 

242, 256 (2013), he stated that in the absence of "fraud or compelling 

circumstances," where the parties have complied with Rule 1:40-4(i) regarding 
8

A-1766-17T3

settlement agreements, the mediation agreement must be "honored." Citing to 

Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185, 193 (1999) and Weishaus v. Weishaus,

180 N.J. 131, 143 (2004), the judge observed that settlement agreements in 

divorce matters are "particularly favored," and quoting from Puder v. Buechel, 

183 N.J. 428, 427 (2005), he explained that "the settlement of litigation ranks

high in the public policy of this state."

The motion judge found that the language employed by the parties in the

mediation agreement established that it was their intention to be bound by the 

mediation agreement "as an addendum/modification to their DSA." He therefore

incorporated its terms into the JOD, making it "enforceable as an Order of the 

Court." 

The judge characterized defendant's cross-motion as an attempt to "renege 

on a signed agreement entered into in mediation, which took place at 

[defendant's] request[, even though t]he intent of the parties could not be any 

clearer." The judge determined that defendant failed to establish that there was 

anything unconscionable about the agreement or that anything happened since 

they entered into it that would make the agreement unconscionable or establish 

an inability to perform its terms. The judge noted that defendant's disclosures

of his assets revealed an account with the funds necessary to make the agreed
9

A-1766-17T3

upon lump sum payment to plaintiff. To the extent defendant claimed he was 

deprived of any information necessary to his entry into the mediation agreement, 

the judge observed that defendant was solely in possession of the information 

he needed about his income and assets and whether it was a wise decision to 

agree to those terms.

Notably, the judge observed that the parties did not formulate through 

mediation a modification of the DSA's alimony amount, but rather a buyout of 

the DSA's alimony that would be acceptable to all parties. Addressing

defendant's arguments about his remaining alimony obligation under the DSA 

being limited to the date he turned sixty-seven, the judge found them to be "pure 

speculation" as the DSA provided for permanent alimony and any termination 

would be "fact sensitive under the alimony statute[,] N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(c)."

Because the judge was satisfied that the mediation agreement should be 

enforced, he did not address whether defendant established a prima facie 

showing of changed circumstances under Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157 

(1980). Also, the motion judge concluded there was no need for a plenary

hearing as there were no "genuine issues as to a material fact" that required a 

resolution through a hearing as contemplated by Harrington v. Harrington, 281 
10 A-1766-17T3

N.J. Super. 39 (App. Div. 1995), and there was no reason to refer the parties for 

additional mediation. This appeal followed.

We begin by acknowledging that "we accord great deference to 

discretionary decisions of Family Part judges." Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. 

Super. 184, 197 (App. Div. 2012). Because of the Family Part's expertise in 

family matters, our review of a Family Part judge's fact-findings is limited. See

N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.S., 429 N.J. Super. 202, 216 (App. Div. 

2013) (citing Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998)); N.J. Div. of Youth & 

Family Servs. v. I.H.C., 415 N.J. Super. 551, 577 (App. Div. 2010).

We generally defer to factual findings made by a trial court when such

findings are supported by adequate, substantial, and credible evidence. Gnall v. 

Gnall, 222 N.J. 414, 428 (2015). Accordingly, we will only reverse a trial court's 

factual findings when they are "so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent 

with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the 

interests of justice." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 

474, 484 (1974) (quoting Fagliarone v. Twp. of N. Bergen, 78 N.J. Super. 154, 

155 (App. Div. 1963)). In contrast, "trial judge[s'] legal conclusions, and the 

application of those conclusions to the facts, are subject to our plenary review." 
11 A-1766-17T3

Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. Super. 552, 568 (App. Div. 2013) (citing Manalapan 

Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)). 

Applying our deferential standard of review, we conclude that defendant's

arguments on appeal challenging the enforcement of the mediation agreement 

are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the motion 

judge in his thorough statement of reasons incorporated into the order under 

appeal. 

We are constrained, however, to remand the matter for the limited purpose 

of having the judge enter an order that provides, upon the date defendant pays 

the agreed to lump sum amount in full, the garnishment terminates, and the 

$16,000 in arrears is vacated. Defendant is also to receive an appropriate credit 

for payments, if any, made through the garnishment after he has made the lump 

sum payment. 

Affirmed in part; remanded in part. We do not retain jurisdiction.