SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3583-17T3

GERARD PFEIFFER,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KARI LASPISA, f/k/a 

KARI PFEIFFER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Submitted March 11, 2019 – Decided March 25, 2019

Before Judges Fasciale and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Hunterdon County, 

Docket No. FM-10-0158-16.

Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, PA, attorneys for 

appellant (Jeralyn L. Lawrence and Kristyl M. Berckes, 

on the brief).

Respondent has not filed a 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3583-17T3

In this post-judgment matrimonial dispute, Kari Laspisa (defendant) 

appeals from Paragraph One of a January 26, 2018 Order (which awarded 

plaintiff parenting time every other weekend), and Paragraphs One, Four, Five, 

and Six of a March 23, 2018 Order (generally awarding plaintiff counsel fees). 

Plaintiff has not participated in this appeal. 

Defendant makes five points on appeal:

POINT I

THE [JUDGE] ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN 

MODIFYING THE PARTIES' CUSTODY AND 

PARENTING[-]TIME SCHEDULE SET FORTH IN 

THEIR MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

[(MSA)] ABSENT A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN 

CIRCUMSTANCE.

POINT II

THE [JUDGE] ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN 

MODIFYING THE PARTIES' CUSTODY AND 

PARENTING[-]TIME SCHEDULE SET FORTH IN 

THEIR [MSA] ABSENT AN APPLICATION OF THE 

FACTORS SET FORTH IN N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 TO 

DETERMINE WHETHER THE MODIFICATION 

WAS IN THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS.

POINT III

ALTERNATIVELY, THE [JUDGE] ERRED AS A 

MATTER OF LAW IN FAILING TO HOLD A 

PLENARY HEARING TO DETERMINE IF 

AWARDING PLAINTIFF AN ADDITIONAL 104 

MIDWEEK PARENTING TIME OVERNIGHTS WAS 
3

A-3583-17T3

IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN 

PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.

POINT IV

ALTERNATIVELY, THE [JUDGE] ERRED AS A 

MATTER OF LAW IN FAILING TO AFFORD 

DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS BY SUA SPONTE 

AWARDING PLAINTIFF AN ADDITIONAL 104 

MIDWEEK PARENTING TIME OVERNIGHTS 

THEREBY ESTABLISHING A PARENTING[-]TIME 

SCHEDULE THAT NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED 

OR TO WHICH DEFENDANT WAS AFFORDED 

THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.

POINT V

THE [JUDGE] ABUSED [HER] DISCRETION IN 

REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO CONTRIBUTE [TO]

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FEES.

Due to emergent-motion activity in November 2018, we reverse the January 26,

2018 order, remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion, and dismiss 

the appeal without prejudice. We also reverse the March 23, 2018 order 

awarding plaintiff $500 in counsel fees subject to reconsideration by the judge 

on remand. 

The parties were married in 2004 and had two daughters. In 2015, the 

court entered a final judgment of divorce (FJOD), which incorporated the 

parties' MSA. The MSA established joint legal custody and designated 

defendant as the parent of primary residence. In December 2017, plaintiff filed 
4

A-3583-17T3

a motion to modify the parenting-time schedule. That motion led to the orders 

under review. 

In November 2018, we granted defendant permission to file an emergent 

motion seeking to suspend plaintiff's parenting time, which plaintiff did not 

oppose. As part of her motion, defendant requested that we suspend the orders 

under review – which would have allowed plaintiff parenting time – until the 

Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division) investigated a 

referral as to plaintiff's alleged drug and alcohol problem and lack of housing. 

Plaintiff had responded to the emergent motion by stating that he had checked 

himself into "another medical facility for further treatment." On November 16, 

2018, we granted defendant's motion and stayed plaintiff's parenting time until 

further order from this court.

In addition to staying the orders under review, we temporarily remanded

the matter to allow defendant the opportunity to pursue other relief that she had 

requested as part of her emergent motion (such as, the completion of a Divison 

investigation, evaluations, review of plaintiff's medical records, etc.). We stated 

in our November 16, 2018 order that on remand, the judge should address 

parenting time and custody issues. We gave the parties permission to seek leave 

to supplement the record after the remand proceedings concluded. Defendant 
5

A-3583-17T3

complied with our emergent order and filed an application with the judge, who 

scheduled a remand hearing for March 8, 2019. 

As to the merits of defendant's appeal from the January 26, 2018 order, 

we conclude that the judge should have conducted a plenary hearing, and that 

there otherwise was insufficient evidence to warrant modification of the

parenting-time schedule contained in the MSA. Moreover, as part of the order 

modifying parenting time, the judge did not undertake a sufficient analysis under 

N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. Had there not been an emergent application, we would have 

reversed and remanded for a hearing. Nevertheless, due to the events leading to 

defendant's emergent motion, we stayed plaintiff's parenting time, which 

necessarily gave defendant full parenting time with the children until the judge 

considered anew the modified custody arrangements in light of defendant's 

unopposed allegations that plaintiff suffers from substance abuse problems, 

which led to an overdose, and related housing issues.

We therefore direct the judge to complete the remand proceedings, 

including a plenary hearing to resolve any remaining parenting time and custody

issues, and to reconsider the award of counsel fees to plaintiff. The parties are 

free to take any appropriate appeal from orders entered on remand. 

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.