DARIA FANELLI VS. KENNETH HNATOWSKI (FM-20-0043-05, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                         NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3352-16T1
    DARIA FANELLI,
    f/k/a HNATOWSKI,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    KENNETH HNATOWSKI,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _____________________________
    Submitted May 7, 2018 – Decided August 17, 2018
    Before Judges Accurso and O'Connor.
    On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
    Chancery Division, Family Part, Union
    County, Docket No. FM-20-0043-05.
    Wolkstein, Von Ellen & Brown, LLC, attorneys
    for appellant (Jamie K. Von Ellen, of
    counsel; Marisa Lepore Hovanec and Stephanie
    R. Carney, on the briefs).
    Ruvolo Law Group, LLC, attorneys for
    respondent (Melissa M. Ruvolo, of counsel;
    Ruth Kim, on the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Plaintiff Daria Fanelli and defendant Kenneth Hnatowski are
    the parents of two children, presently fifteen and sixteen years
    of age.   The parties divorced in 2005 and plaintiff has been the
    primary caretaker since.   According to the parties' property
    settlement agreement (PSA), which they entered before the oldest
    child started elementary school, the parties agreed to "equally
    (50/50) divide . . . school cost[s] after consultation with the
    other.    College will abide the event."   Both children have
    attended private parochial school since kindergarten.
    Plaintiff paid the children's school tuition without
    contribution from defendant through the fall of 2016, when she
    filed a motion seeking, among other things, an order compelling
    defendant to commence contributing toward the children's private
    school tuition costs in proportion to the parties' respective
    incomes or, in the alternative, that he pay fifty percent of the
    children's tuition "in accordance with . . . the parties'
    Property Settlement Agreement."
    Defendant opposed the motion, contending the term "school
    cost[s]" in the PSA does not include the cost of private school
    tuition, and that plaintiff neither obtained his consent nor
    consulted with him before enrolling the children in private
    school.   Defendant also filed a cross-motion seeking, among
    other things, an order permitting him to claim both children as
    an exemption for tax year 2016.
    2
    A-3352-16T1
    On March 1, 2017, the court entered an order directing that
    defendant pay fifty percent of the children's private school
    tuition, effective December 31, 2016, and permitting him to
    claim both children as exemptions for tax year 2016.   Two days
    later, the court entered an amended order on March 3, 2017
    denying defendant the latter relief.   Defendant challenges these
    two orders.1   We affirm.
    On appeal, defendant contends there are questions of fact
    requiring a plenary hearing on whether the term "school cost[s]"
    includes tuition, and whether plaintiff consulted with him
    before enrolling the children in private school.   Defendant
    notes that even if the term "school cost[s]" includes tuition,
    plaintiff is equitably estopped from seeking defendant's
    contribution toward this expense because she failed to do so for
    nine years.
    1
    In fact defendant's notice of appeal states he is appealing
    from the March 1, 2017 order and does not mention the March 3,
    2017 order. However, defendant clearly intended to appeal from
    the March 3, 2017 order as well, which amended the March 1, 2017
    order. Further, both parties briefed the one issue arising out
    of the March 3, 2017 order, which obviously is closely
    intertwined with – and in fact amends – the March 1, 2017 order.
    Under these unique circumstances, although not referenced in
    defendant's notice of appeal, we consider defendant's challenge
    to the March 3 in addition to the March 1, 2017 order.
    3
    A-3352-16T1
    Defendant further contends that, if the doctrine of
    equitable estoppel is unavailing to him and the term "school
    cost[s]" does not include private school tuition, the trial
    court is obligated to consider the factors in Hoefers v. Jones,
    
    288 N.J. Super. 590
    , 611-12 (Ch. Div. 1994), aff'd, 288 N.J.
    Super. 478 (App. Div. 1996), to determine if he is required to
    contribute to the children's tuition for private school.2
    Finally, defendant argues the court erred when it denied his
    request he be permitted to claim the children as exemptions for
    tax year 2016.
    2
    These factors are: (1) the ability of the secondary caretaker
    to pay; (2) the past attendance of one or both parents at that
    or a similar private school; (3) whether the child was attending
    private school pre or post divorce; (4) the prior agreement of
    the secondary caretaker to pay for private school; (5) the
    religious background of the parties and the child; (6) whether
    the special educational, psychological or special needs of child
    are met by the private school; (7) whether it is in the child's
    best interest to attend, or to continue to attend, private
    school; (8) whether a court order or an agreement of the parties
    grants the right of school choice upon the primary caretaker;
    (9) whether the action of the primary caretaker to enroll the
    child was reasonable under the circumstances; (10) whether
    private school tuition is permitted or authorized under the law;
    (11) the child's ability to respond and prosper from such an
    educational experience; (12) the secondary caretaker's
    involvement in the child's education; (13) the degree of the
    primary caretaker's involvement in the child's education; and
    (14) whether the primary caretaker's views and desires are
    consistent with past practices regarding private school
    education. 
    Hoefers, 288 N.J. Super. at 611-12
    (first citing
    Dempsey v. Stevens, 
    611 So. 2d 815
    (La. Ct. App. 1992); then
    citing Margolin v. Margolin, 
    796 S.W.2d 38
    (Mo. Ct. App. 1990);
    and then citing In re Marriage of Alexander, 
    173 Ill. Dec. 456
    ,
    
    596 N.E.2d 1335
    (1992)).
    4
    A-3352-16T1
    On the tuition issue, the trial court determined the term
    "school cost[s]" is clear and unambiguous and thus includes the
    cost of private school tuition.   The court stated:
    Giving deference to the plain meaning of the
    parties' PSA, the court finds that the PSA
    is not ambiguous as "school costs" strictly
    construed means exactly that: the costs
    associated with school[,] meaning all school
    costs for the children including school
    tuition.
    To buttress its conclusion, the court referenced other
    parts of the PSA it regarded as supportive of its determination
    that the term "school cost" includes tuition.   We deem it
    unnecessary to recite these additional findings because the
    language under review is clear.   Although free to do so,
    nonetheless, the trial court was not required to look to other
    provisions in the agreement to fortify its finding on this
    point.
    "Settlement of disputes, including matrimonial disputes, is
    encouraged and highly valued in our system."    Quinn v. Quinn,
    
    225 N.J. 34
    , 44 (2016).   "Therefore, 'fair and definitive
    arrangements arrived at by mutual consent should not be
    unnecessarily or lightly disturbed.'"   
    Id. at 44-45
    (quoting
    Konzelman v. Konzelman, 
    158 N.J. 185
    , 193-94 (1999)).     "An
    agreement that resolves a matrimonial dispute is no less a
    contract than an agreement to resolve a business dispute" and
    5
    A-3352-16T1
    "is governed by basic contract principles."     
    Quinn, 225 N.J. at 45
    .
    A court should not "rewrite or revise an agreement when the
    intent of the parties is clear."    
    Ibid. "Thus, when the
    intent
    of the parties is plain and the language is clear and
    unambiguous, a court must enforce the agreement as written,
    unless doing so would lead to an absurd result."     
    Ibid. Whether a contract
    term is clear or ambiguous is a question of law.
    Nester v. O'Donnell, 
    301 N.J. Super. 198
    , 210 (App. Div. 1997).
    Here, for the reasons expressed by the trial court, we find
    no reason to disturb its determination that the term "school
    cost[s]" includes tuition.   The term is unambiguous and there is
    no indication in the PSA the parties intended the word "cost" to
    be limited to only certain, unexpressed expenses that do not
    include tuition.   Because the language is clear and unequivocal,
    the court must enforce the agreement as written.     See 
    ibid. On the question
    of whether plaintiff consulted with
    defendant before enrolling the children in private school, the
    trial court determined defendant's failure to object to the
    children's attendance in private school over nine years operated
    as implicit consent.   If defendant consented, then plaintiff's
    failure to have consulted with him is inconsequential.
    6
    A-3352-16T1
    In our view, the question whether plaintiff consulted with
    or obtained defendant's consent before enrolling the children in
    private school over the nine years before she filed her motion
    is irrelevant.   In her motion plaintiff did not request that
    defendant reimburse her for the tuition she previously paid on
    the children's behalf.     She requested that defendant contribute
    toward tuition going forward and, significantly, in his cross-
    motion, defendant did not seek an order compelling the children
    to attend public school.
    Finally, we have no quarrel with the court's decision to
    deny defendant his request to claim both children as an
    exemption on his 2016 income tax return.    The PSA stated both
    parties were each permitted to claim one child as an exemption
    in the event plaintiff earns over $20,000 per year.    It is not
    disputed plaintiff has been earning over $20,000 and each party
    has been claiming one child as an exemption for many years, but
    for 2015, when defendant permitted plaintiff to take an
    exemption for both children.
    To the extent we have not explicitly addressed an argument
    advanced by defendant, it is because it was without sufficient
    merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.     See R. 2:11-
    3(e)(1)(E).
    Affirmed.
    7
    A-3352-16T1