TYRONE BOWENS VS. PETRONILLA BOWENS (FM-20-0090-12, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4081-18T2
TYRONE BOWENS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PETRONILLA BOWENS,
Defendant-Respondent.
_____________________________
Submitted February 12, 2020 – Decided March 6, 2020
Before Judges Haas and Mayer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County,
Docket No. FM-20-0090-12.
Tyrone Bowens, appellant pro se.
Petronilla Bowens, respondent pro se.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Tyrone Bowens appeals from an April 26, 2019 order denying
his post-judgment matrimonial motion to reduce alimony and child support
based on changed circumstances. We affirm.
Plaintiff and defendant Petronilla Bowens divorced on October 2, 2012.
The parties resolved their disputes in an oral settlement agreement placed on the
record on that date. On March 1, 2013, the family court entered an amended
judgment of divorce reflecting the parties' oral agreement.
In May 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to reduce his alimony and child
support based on changed circumstances. Plaintiff had been a probation officer
but was suspended from his job in 2017 due to an altercation with a parolee.
Based on that incident, plaintiff realized he would likely be terminated from his
job. Therefore, plaintiff elected to resign his position to preserve his pension.
Plaintiff's income subsequent to his resignation decreased to half the
salary he earned at the time of the amended judgment of divorce. Plaintiff
claimed he applied for a number of jobs electronically but was unable to find
work except as a commercial bus driver.
In denying plaintiff's request to modify his support obligations, the judge
concluded plaintiff engaged in "reckless conduct," causing him to lose his
probation officer position. The judge found "[p]laintiff had worked for decades
A-4081-18T2
2
in his position and was well aware that an altercation with a parolee could result
in an adverse job action." Thus, the judge determined plaintiff "acted in
disregard of [the] needs [of his ex-wife and son] when he made the decision that
he did," causing him to resign from his high earning job. Further, the judge
found plaintiff's employment situation "temporary in nature" and that plaintiff
failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to locate other work.
On appeal, plaintiff argues the following:
IN ADJUDICATING "CHANGE[D]
CIRCUMSTANCES" AND A MODIFICATION OF A
SUPPORT ORDER THE FINDING OF VOLUNTARY
CONDUCT RESULTING IN A REDUCTION OF
INCOME SHOULD NOT RESULT IN A DENIAL OF
AN APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF
SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS.
Our scope of review of a Family Part decision is limited. "Whether an
alimony obligation should be modified based upon a claim of changed
circumstances rests within a Family Part judge's sound discretion." Larbig v.
Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17, 21 (App. Div. 2006). Similarly, we review an
application to modify a child support obligation for abuse of discretion. See
Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 594-95 (1995). We will not disturb a Family
Part judge's decision on support obligations "unless it is manifestly
unreasonable, arbitrary, or clearly contrary to reason or other evidence, or the
A-4081-18T2
3
result of whim or caprice." Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109, 116 (App.
Div. 2012) (quoting Foust v. Glaser, 340 N.J. Super. 312, 316 (App. Div. 2001)).
Alimony and child support "may be revised and altered by the court from
time to time as circumstances may require." N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. To warrant
such a modification, a party must demonstrate "changed circumstances." Lepis
v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 150-51 (1980).
After reviewing the record, we affirm substantially for the reasons
expressed by Judge Thomas J. Walsh in his April 26, 2019 order and attached
statement of reasons. Based on the testimony and exhibits introduced at the
testimonial hearing, the judge determined plaintiff failed to demonstrate
changed circumstances warranting a modification of his support obligations.
The judge's statement of reasons is supported by substantial credible evidence
in the record. We discern no abuse of discretion in the denial of plaintiff's
request to modify child support and alimony.
Affirmed.
A-4081-18T2
4