SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4416-15T2

JACQALENE NOVAK,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KENNETH J. NOVAK,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted May 17, 2017 – Decided July 17, 2017

Before Judges Simonelli and Farrington.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, 

Hunterdon County, Docket No. FM-10-106-06.

Kenneth J. Novak, appellant pro se.

Jacqalene Novak, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM 

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, defendant Kenneth

J. Novak appeals from that part of the April 29, 2016 Family Part 

order which denied his motion to terminate his obligation to pay 

60% of his eldest daughter's college costs based upon a change of 

his financial circumstances. For the following reasons, we affirm.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4416-15T2

The parties were married on April 17, 1993, and divorced on 

October 3, 2006. Two children were born of the marriage, J.N., 

born in 1996, and G.N., born in 1999.1 Although the parties had 

executed a property settlement agreement, which was incorporated 

into their final judgment of divorce, it contained no provision 

for contribution toward the children's college expenses. However, 

in a March 11, 2011 consent order, defendant agreed to pay 60% of 

the children's tuition and school expenses and plaintiff agreed 

to pay 40%, effective for the 2011-2012 school year and going 

forward. Thereafter, defendant embarked on a crusade to terminate 

his obligation to pay J.N.'s college costs based on his changed 

financial circumstances. In each instance, the court denied the 

motion and enforced the consent order, finding defendant failed 

to show a change in financial circumstances sufficient to amend 

the order. 

Judge Julie M. Marino heard another motion by defendant 

concerning his obligation to pay J.N.'s college expenses. In a 

February 29, 2016 order, the judge found that the records defendant 

submitted in support of his motion were incomplete and 

insufficient. The judge concluded that defendant failed to provide 

evidence reflecting a significant, ongoing change of circumstances 

 

1 Pursuant to Rule 1:38-3(d), we use initials to protect the 

identity of the children.
3 A-4416-15T2

to warrant a modification of prior orders requiring him to pay 60% 

of J.N.'s college expenses. 

Defendant filed yet another motion concerning his obligation 

to pay J.N.'s college expenses. In an April 29, 2016 order and 

written statement of reasons, from which defendant appeals, Judge 

Marino found as follows:

Defendant brings the same argument he 

presented before this Court in February 2016. 

Defendant provides some evidence for his 

certification of events that have taken 

p[l]a[]ce which he believes are a change in 

circumstance. However, he misrepresents his 

financial situation. Plaintiff presents the 

[c]ourt with a letter from the Internal 

Revenue Service dated December 14, 2015 

wherein the [d]efendant requests an appeal 

from a collection due process hearing, 

evidencing that his tax returns from 2008 

until 2013 are or were subject to audit by the 

IRS. The [c]ourt cannot reasonably rely upon 

any tax returns [] subject to audit as proof 

of [d]efendant’s income. Therefore, as the 

[d]efendant has not presented any new evidence 

not already considered in previous motions or 

any reliable financial information not subject 

to audit, the [c]ourt cannot find a change in 

circumstance that would necessitate a 

modification of an order entered almost three 

years ago.

On appeal, defendant contends that he made a threshold showing 

of a change in his financial circumstances warranting a 

modification of his obligation to pay 60% of J.N.'s college 

expenses.
4 A-4416-15T2

"In our review of a Family Part judge's motion order, we 

defer to factual findings 'supported by adequate, substantial, 

credible evidence' in the record." Landers v. Landers, 444 N.J. 

Super. 315, 319 (app. Div. 2016) (quoting Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J.

414, 428 (2015)). "Reversal is warranted when we conclude a 

mistake must have been made because the trial court's factual 

findings are 'manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the

competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend 

the interests of justice[.]'" Ibid. (quoting Rova Farms Resort,

Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). 

"However, when reviewing legal conclusions, our obligation is 

different; '[t]o the extent that the trial court's decision 

constitutes a legal determination, we review it de novo.'" Ibid. 

(quoting D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168, 182 (2013)). 

Applying these standards, we discern no reason to disturb Judge 

Marino's ruling.

A parent seeking to modify a child support order must show 

"'changed circumstances had substantially impaired [the parent's] 

ability to support himself or herself.'" Foust v. Glaser, 340 

N.J. Super. 312, 316 (App. Div. 2001) (quoting Lepis v. Lepis, 83 

N.J. 139, 157 (1980)). When considering an application to modify 

a support obligation, the movant must "make a prima facie showing 

of changed circumstances warranting relief prior to the court 
5 A-4416-15T2

ordering discovery of the full financial circumstances" of the 

parties. Dorfman v. Dorfman, 315 N.J. Super. 511, 515 (App. Div. 

1998) (citing Lepis, supra, 83 N.J. at 157-59). "If that showing 

is made, and after receipt of ordered discovery, the judge then 

determines whether the changed circumstances justify modification. 

A plenary hearing may be necessary to adjudicate the matter if 

there are genuine issues of material fact." Ibid. (citing Tancredi 

v. Tancredi, 101 N.J. Super. 259, 262 (App. Div. 1968)). 

Rule 5:5-4(a) requires that a motion for modification shall 

be accompanied by a copy of the prior case information statement 

or statements filed before entry of the order or judgment sought 

to be modified and a copy of a current case information statement 

in the form set forth in Appendix V. When seeking to modify a 

support order, litigants must attach "copies of relevant documents 

as required by the Case Information Statement, including [their] 

most recent tax returns with W-2 forms, 1099s and [their] three 

(3) most recent paystubs." Family Part Case Information Statement, 

Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix V to R.

5:5-4(a) at 1 (2016). "Accurate, complete and current information 

is essential at every stage of a litigated matrimonial matter. 

The quality of every judicial decision depends heavily on the 

information presented to the court". Pressler & Verniero, Current 

N.J. Court Rules, comment 1 on R. 5:5-2 (2016).
6 A-4416-15T2

We have considered defendant's contention in light of the 

record and applicable legal principles and conclude it is without 

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons Judge 

Marino expressed in her written statement of reasons. We are 

satisfied that defendant failed to provide accurate, complete, and 

current information to support his claim of a change in financial 

circumstances.

Affirmed.