Court Opinion

ID: 9963007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 14:07:08.134754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:45.487264
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-2233-22

BROCK H. SACKSTEIN,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KRISTA A. KUKIS,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________

                   Argued April 15, 2024 – Decided April 24, 2024

                   Before Judges Mawla and Chase.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
                   Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County,
                   Docket No. FD-03-1489-17.

                   Christine Casullo Cockerill argued the cause for
                   appellant (Cockerill, Craig & Moore, LLC, attorneys;
                   Christine Casullo Cockerill and Matthew John
                   Marchini, on the briefs).

                   David Ryan Nussey argued the cause for respondent
                   (Klineburger and Nussey, attorneys; David Ryan
                   Nussey and Lisa Gosnay Nolan, on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      In this non-dissolution matter, defendant Krista Kukis appeals from a

March 7, 2023 order denying her application for child support. We reverse and

remand the order for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

      Defendant and plaintiff Brock Sackstein are parents of a child who is now

sixteen years old. At some point, the parties' relationship dissolved, and on June

20, 2017, the court granted the parties joint legal custody and entered an equal

shared parenting arrangement for the summer of 2017, whereby the child spent

one week with one parent and the following week with the other. On October

13, 2017, the matter returned to court, and the court continued the shared

parenting arrangement. Defendant had sought child support, but the court's

order stated it had "insufficient information to address child support at [that]

time, and [defendant would have to file] a separate motion supplemented by a

completed [Case Information Statement (CIS)] from both parties with all

applicable attachments."      The order noted the court would preserve the

retroactive filing date for child support "in the event the application is filed

within [forty-five] days of [October 13, 2017, and plaintiff's] counsel is free to

argue a later date of retroactivity for this application." Defendant did not file an

application within forty-five days of the October 2017 order.

                                                                              A-2233-22
                                         2
      The parties continued to dispute custody, parenting time, and child

support and each filed an application, which the court heard on February 5, 2018.

The court found there had been no change in circumstances warranting

modification of the June and October 2017 orders. As to child support, the order

stated: "This matter may be relisted for a child support hearing once [defendant]

serves [plaintiff] with support documents consistent with the pertinent court

rules."   The record does not reflect defendant served plaintiff with the

documents, presumably the CIS, the court had previously ordered.

      In September 2021, plaintiff filed an order to show cause seeking relief

related to custody and parenting time.       The court converted the emergent

application to a motion. Defendant's cross-motion made various requests for

relief but did not include a request for child support. The court adjudicated the

parties' claims in an order dated October 15, 2021.

      On November 15, 2022, defendant moved to modify the October 15, 2021

order, and as regards the issues raised on this appeal, she also moved to establish

child support and for "a brief period of discovery for child support purposes

given the nature of [p]laintiff's income stream outside of W-2 income."

Defendant's motion pleadings appended a non-dissolution financial statement

for summary support actions, her 2021 W-2, and three most recent pay stubs.

                                                                             A-2233-22
                                        3
      Defendant certified that she worked fulltime, had two other young

children born since the court entered the initial 2017 order in this case, and that

she resided with their father. She pointed out plaintiff was married and had two

small children of his own. Defendant noted she had requested child support in

2017 and 2018, but "[t]here [had] been so many substantive parenting issues that

the child support requests fell by the wayside." She was now requesting "the

court enter a formal child support order."

      Defendant certified that even though the parties had equal parenting time ,

plaintiff "traditionally earned over double what [she] earn[ed] annually." The

parties worked in the same industry, her annual income fluctuated , but she was

a W-2 employee, and her income was reflected on the document. Defendant

requested discovery because she claimed plaintiff earned income through

properties he owned and business earnings, in addition to his W-2 earnings.

      The motion judge heard oral argument on March 6, 2023. The bulk of the

argument regarded the parties' dispute over a pressing medical issue related to

their child. When defendant's attorney sought to address the child support-

related aspects of her client's application, the judge stated he would not address

child support or anything else because the more important matter was the child's

medical issue. Notwithstanding the judge's reluctance, he permitted defense

                                                                             A-2233-22
                                        4
counsel to argue, and asked counsel to explain what change of circumstance

existed as to child support. She pointed out the parties' income discrepancy, the

fact they each had other children, and that plaintiff had not provided "any

financial information for child support."

      The judge responded defendant had to show a change in circumstance

before the court "would order the exchange of financial information." Although

the judge acknowledged that "in this case there is no child support order" and

defendant had requested child support in 2017 and 2018, "she was ordered to

supply documentation and [he] guess[ed] she didn't[,] and the issue just

essentially went away." Regardless, the judge concluded he would not order

child support because there was no change in circumstances. The judge entered

the March 2023 order, which stated:            "The [c]ourt finds no change of

circumstances warranting a review of child support (the parties have the same

shared custodial arrangement and [d]efendant disregarded prior orders

concerning child support[-]related issues)."

                                       I.

      "The trial court has substantial discretion in making a child support

award." Foust v. Glaser, 340 N.J. Super. 312, 315 (App. Div. 2001). "If

consistent with the law, such an award 'will not be disturbed unless it is

                                                                           A-2233-22
                                       5
"manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or clearly contrary to reason or to other

evidence, or the result of whim or caprice."'" Id. at 315-16 (quoting Raynor v.

Raynor, 319 N.J. Super. 591, 605 (App. Div. 1999)). The standard of review "is

that findings by the trial court are binding on appeal when supported by

adequate, substantial, credible evidence" in the record. Cesare v. Cesare, 154

N.J. 394, 411-412 (1998). However, "all legal issues are reviewed de novo."

Ricci v. Ricci, 448 N.J. Super. 546, 565 (App. Div. 2017).

      Defendant argues we must review the March 2023 order de novo because

the motion judge erred as a matter of law when he found she had to prove a

change in circumstances to establish child support. She further asserts the judge

ignored that child support belongs to the child and the right to support from each

parent cannot be waived, even where a parent fails to "apply for or perfect an

application for child support." Defendant contends the judge also misapplied

the law when he failed to analyze child support under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a). She

argues the court should have calculated child support using the New Jersey Child

Support Guidelines as a starting point, because the guidelines are presumptive.

She adds, child support was warranted even under a change in circumstances

standard given the parties' income disparity and the fact they each have had other

children since the initial order in 2017. We address these arguments in turn.

                                                                            A-2233-22
                                        6
                                        II.

      It is axiomatic that child support is a right that belongs to the child.

Martinetti v. Hickman, 261 N.J. Super. 508, 512 (App. Div. 1993). Both parents

bear the obligation of child support. Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 593

(1995). "[C]hildren are entitled to share in the current income of both parents."

Child Support Guidelines, Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules,

Appendix IX-A to R. 5:6A, ¶ 1, www.gannlaw.com (2024). To that end, our

court rules state the guidelines "shall be applied when an application to establish

or modify child support is considered by the court." R. 5:6A. A court need not

apply the guidelines where there is good cause not to, namely "factors which

may make the guidelines inapplicable or subject to modification and [where an]

. . . injustice would result from the application of the guidelines."         Ibid.

However, the "guidelines must be used as a rebuttable presumption to establish

or modify all child support orders. The guidelines must be applied in all actions,

contested or uncontested, in which child support is being determined including

. . . non-dissolution" matters. Child Support Guidelines, Pressler & Verniero,

Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-A to R. 5:6A, ¶ 2.

      Another basic principle is that our courts "may make [an] order as to the

. . . maintenance of the [parties'] child[]" and that "[o]rders so made may be

                                                                             A-2233-22
                                        7
revised and altered by the court from time to time as circumstances may require."

N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. Our Supreme Court has explained the authority to modify

orders emanates from the fact "support orders define only the present obligations

of the [parties]." Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 146 (1980). Therefore, "[t]hose

duties are always subject to review and modification on a showing of 'changed

circumstances.'" Ibid. (quoting Chalmers v. Chalmers, 65 N.J. 186, 192 (1974)).

Thus, the condition precedent for a court's ability to determine whether a change

in circumstances exists is the existence of an order wherein the court has

adjudicated support in initio.

      Pursuant to these principles, we are constrained to conclude the motion

judge misapprehended the law when he declined to adjudicate child support

because there had been no change of circumstances since entry of the 2017 and

2018 orders. Those orders never established child support and a change in

circumstances standard did not apply for this reason; defendant never moved to

modify child support, but rather establish it. 1 For these reasons, we reverse the

1
  For purposes of completeness, even if the change in circumstances standard
applied, there was ample basis to find changed circumstances. Plaintiff
remarried and had two other children and defendant had three other children.
Under the guidelines, each party would be entitled to seek an other dependent
deduction, which could make child support payable, notwithstanding the parties'
equal parenting time. Child Support Guidelines, Pressler & Verniero, Current
N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-A to R. 5:6A, ¶ 10.
                                                                            A-2233-22
                                        8
March 7, 2023 order and direct the trial court to establish child support , as we

will later explain herein.

        Before we do so, we first address the 2017 and 2018 orders, which denied

defendant child support because she had not filed a CIS, as they formed the basis

for the erroneous March 2023 order. Rule 5:5-3 requires both litigants in non-

dissolution cases involving child support, prior to the hearing, to serve upon

each other, and the court, a financial statement in summary support actions.

"The court shall use the information provided . . . and any other relevant facts

to set an adequate level of child support in accordance with R[ule] 5:6A." R.

5:5-3. A CIS in form prescribed by Rule 5:5-2(a) is only required in non-

dissolution matters "involving the support of a spouse, civil union partner or

domestic partner, or requests for college or post-secondary school contribution."

Ibid.

        For these reasons, notwithstanding defendant's failure to meet the forty-

five-day deadline in the 2017 order to file a CIS, the requirement that defendant

file a CIS to obtain child support was mistaken as a matter of law. The 2018

order compounded this error when the court again found defendant had not filed

a CIS. Furthermore, neither the 2017 nor the 2018 orders contained findings

regarding the necessity for a CIS. Although plaintiff asserts a CIS was required

                                                                           A-2233-22
                                        9
because defendant derived income from sources other than her W-2

employment, Rule 5:5-3 still applied.

      And although, as plaintiff points out, the financial statement defendant

provided when she sought child support in 2021 was incomplete, the court still

had her W-2 and last three paystubs.         If convinced these documents were

insufficient, it could have ordered limited discovery regarding her income.

Indeed, "[w]hether the case is designated as complex or handled as a summary

action, Family Part judges have broad discretion to permit, deny, or limit

discovery in accordance with the circumstances of the individual case." Major

v. Maguire, 224 N.J. 1, 24 (2016).

      For these reasons, the March 7, 2023 order's reliance on the 2017 and 2018

orders and the change in circumstances standard as the basis for to deny child

support was a mistaken application of law. We remand the matter to the motion

judge to calculate child support retroactive to November 15, 2022, the date of

defendant's motion seeking child support.        Both parties 2 shall file a fully

completed financial statement in support of summary actions in accordance with

a deadline to be determined by the motion judge. The motion judge shall decide

2
  Plaintiff concedes he never filed a financial statement, based on the erroneous
belief one was not required until defendant established a prima facie change in
circumstances.
                                                                            A-2233-22
                                        10
whether there shall be discovery regarding the parties' finances for purposes of

adjudicating child support and shall establish a schedule for limited discovery

as to child support. Thereafter, the motion judge shall adjudicate the request for

child support in accordance with the guidelines.

      Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                                            A-2233-22
                                       11