Patricia R. Auslander v. Robert Auslander ( 2024 )

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3822-21
PATRICIA R. AUSLANDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant/
Cross-Respondent,
v.
ROBERT AUSLANDER,
Defendant-Respondent/
Cross-Appellant.
___________________________
Submitted January 30, 2024 – Decided February 7, 2024
Before Judges Haas and Puglisi.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County,
Docket No. FM-14-1279-14.
Speck Law Offices, LLC, attorneys for appellant/cross-
respondent (Michael R. Speck, on the briefs).
Berse Law, LLC, attorneys for respondent/cross-
appellant (Samuel J. Berse, on the briefs).
PER CURIAM
In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Patricia R. Auslander
appeals from the Family Part's July 1, 2022 order, which increased defendant
Richard Auslander's child support obligation to $1,908 per week for the parties'
four children. Defendant has filed a cross-appeal from the same order. The
parties both argue that the order must be reversed and remanded because the
trial court did not make any findings of fact or conclusions of law explaining the
basis for its child support calculation. We agree.
The parties were married in 2002 and they divorced in 2016. In 2020,
defendant's alimony obligation to plaintiff ceased under the terms of their
matrimonial settlement agreement. On August 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion
seeking an increase in defendant's $880 per month child support obligation. On
December 1, 2020, the trial court found that the cessation of alimony constituted
a change of circumstances warranting a review of child support. The court
scheduled a case management conference in order to set the terms of financial
discovery.
Thereafter, the case slowly proceeded through the litigation process. On
May 12, 2021, the trial court increased child support to $451 per week on an
interim basis retroactive to December 1, 2020. The parties filed more motions,
A-3822-21
2
and the court entered additional orders on a number of topics. At the end of
2021, a different trial judge took over the management of the case.
In March 2022, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a final child support order.
The trial court ordered the parties to produce additional financial information.
In May 2022, plaintiff asked for a plenary hearing and counsel fees. The court
denied this motion but did not provide a statement of reasons for its decision.
Finally, on July 1, 2022, the trial court issued the order that is the subject
of this appeal. In paragraph one of the order, the court stated:
Upon the [c]ourt's review of the parties' updated
earnings information, [d]efendant will now pay
$1,908.00/week in base child support via Morris
County Probation, effective the date of this order. The
relevant child support guidelines worksheets are
attached. The [c]ourt used [d]efendant's Social
Security Earnings Statement which states $657,332.00
in 2021 Medicare wages ($12,641.00/week), and used
[p]laintiff's Social Security Earnings Statement which
states $31,475.00 in 2021 Medicare wages
($605.00/week). The [c]ourt determined it was
appropriate to utilize the guidelines to set an amount for
base child support, understanding that this is an above
the guidelines case.
This was the only explanation provided by the court for its ruling. The
four child support worksheets were appended to the order. It appears that the
court simply added the child support number for each child together to arrive at
the new $1,908 per month obligation.
A-3822-21
3
As the parties argue on appeal, this unexplained calculation cannot stand.
Where, as here, the parties' combined income levels exceed the maximum child
support guidelines, "the maximum amount provided for in the guidelines should
be 'supplemented' by an additional award determined through application of the
statutory factors in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a)" in the court's discretion. Isaacson v.
Isaacson, 348 N.J. Super. 560, 581 (App. Div. 2002). "In the context of high-
income parents whose ability to pay is not an issue, 'the dominant guideline for
consideration is the reasonable needs of the children, which must be addressed
in the context of the standard of living of the parties.'" Strahan v. Strahan, 402
N.J. Super. 298, 307 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Isaacson, 348 N.J. Super. at
581).
To determine the needs of a child in a high-income family,
a balance must be struck between reasonable needs,
which reflect lifestyle opportunities, while at the same
time precluding an inappropriate windfall to the child
or even in some cases infringing on the legitimate right
of either parent to determine the appropriate lifestyle of
a child. This latter consideration involves a careful
balancing of interests reflecting that a child's
entitlement to share in a parent's good fortune does not
deprive either parent of the right to participate in the
development of an appropriate value system for a child.
This is a critical tension that may develop between
competing parents. Ultimately, the needs of a child in
such circumstances also calls to the fore the best
interests of a child.
A-3822-21
4
[Isaacson, 348 N.J. Super. at 582.]
Here, the trial court's terse one-paragraph explanation of its calculation
fails to demonstrate that it applied these principles in determining the amount of
child support due the children. While the court completed four standard child
support worksheets, there is no evidence that it considered any of the statutory
criteria for child support as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. The court also failed
to make any findings concerning the reasonable needs of the children. The court
did not explain its rationale for its determination nor did it address any of the
parties' competing arguments.
Rule 1:7-4(a) clearly states that a trial "court shall, by an opinion or
memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state its
conclusions of law thereon . . . on every motion decided by a written order that
is appealable as of right[.]" See Shulas v. Estabrook, 385 N.J. Super. 91, 96
(App. Div. 2006) (requiring an adequate explanation of basis for court's action).
Here, the court provided no reasons for the July 1, 2022 order. Curtis v.
Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980) (requiring court to clearly state its factual
findings and correlate them with the relevant legal conclusions). As a result, we
have no way of knowing why it determined that $1,908 per week in child support
was appropriate.
A-3822-21
5
In addition, the trial court did not explain why it did not make the new
obligation retroactive to August 28, 2020, the date plaintiff filed her original
motion; December 1, 2020, the date the court set in its May 12, 2021 order for
the commencement of the interim modification; or some other date. The court
failed to set the amount of any arrears due plaintiff. The trial court also did not
address plaintiff's request for a plenary hearing or the parties' applications for
counsel fees.
"Meaningful appellate review is inhibited unless the [trial court] sets forth
the reasons for [its] opinion." Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. at 310 (quoting Salch v.
Salch, 240 N.J. Super. 441, 443 (App. Div. 1990)). The failure to provide
findings of fact and conclusions of law "'constitutes a disservice to the litig ants,
the attorneys[,] and the appellate court.'" Curtis, 83 N.J. at 569-70 (quoting
Kenwood Assocs. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 141 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 1976)).
The trial court's complete failure to provide the findings of fact and conclusions
of law required by Rule 1:7-4(a) necessitates a remand for fulfillment of the trial
court's obligation in this regard.
We recognize the difficulties the Family Part faces, day in and day out, of
dealing with large volumes of contested matters, particularly in high-conflict
matrimonial cases such as this one. Litigants may deluge the court with
A-3822-21
6
complicated filings, prayers for relief, and opposition papers. Nevertheless,
despite these pressures, trial courts must endeavor to make the necessary rulings
on a timely basis and provide ample reasons for their decisions to guide the
parties and also to enable meaningful appellate review if it is sought. In some
instances, more detailed reasoning might discourage parties from moving for
reconsideration or pursuing appeals, thereby saving time and expense in the long
run. It is not clear why this particular case went amiss, but a remand will provide
an opportunity for prompt corrective action to be undertaken.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-3822-21
7