HEATHER STANTON VS. KEVIN SEMBRAT (FM-10-0323-13, HUNTERDON 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5389-18T3
HEATHER STANTON, f/k/a
HEATHER SEMBRAT,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KEVIN SEMBRAT
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Submitted May 6, 2020 – Decided May 22, 2020
Before Judges Koblitz, Whipple and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Hunterdon County,
Docket No. FM-10-0323-13.
Kevin Sembrat, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Kevin Sembrat appeals from the provisions of a July 1, 2019
order denying his request to compel plaintiff Heather Stanton to reimburse him
"$3800 that was automatically withheld and applied to his arrears" and setting
the emancipation date of the youngest child in July rather than October 2021.
We remand for an order correcting the emancipation date. According due
deference to the Family Part, we affirm the monetary provision, thereby
allowing the trial court to fashion an appropriate equitable remedy.
The parties were married in 1995, had three children and were divorced
in 2014. On April 13, 2018, the parties entered into an agreement, which was
recorded by court order, that in part provided that "[d]efendant's arrears payback
shall be set at $0, to be revisited upon [the youngest child's] emancipation."
Nonetheless, the Hunterdon County Probation Child Support Enforcement Unit
intercepted a Worker's Compensation settlement owed to defendant and sent
$3800 to plaintiff, thereby reducing the more than $25,000 in arrears due prior
to the April 2018 order.
Defendant sought reimbursement from plaintiff. He offered to stop paying
$135 child support weekly until the $3800 was paid off. Plaintiff told the court
she had spent the unexpected funds on necessities, had no funds to repay
defendant and needed the weekly child support. The court did not grant
defendant relief.
A-5389-18T3
2
Defendant argues that generally a family contract should be vigorously
enforced by the court. When reviewing an agreement resolving a matrimonial
dispute, however, we are to "consider what is 'written in the context of the
circumstances' at the time of drafting and to apply 'a rational meaning in keeping
with the expressed general purpose.'" Wyotas v. Greenwood Tree Experts, Inc.,
237 N.J. 501, 512 (2019) (quoting Sachau v. Sachau, 206 N.J. 1, 5-6 (2011)).
"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." Quinn v. Quinn, 225 N.J. 34, 45 (2016). "At
the same time, '[t]he law grants particular leniency to agreements made in the
domestic arena,' thus allowing 'judges greater discretion when interpreting such
agreements.'" Sachau, 206 N.J. at 5 (alteration in original) (quoting Guglielmo
v. Guglielmo, 253 N.J. Super. 531, 542 (App. Div. 1992)).
We defer in great measure to the Family Part, which has the parties before
it and can assess the appropriate remedy through an experienced and equitable
lens. "[M]atrimonial courts possess special expertise in the field of domestic
relations." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998). "[A]n appellate court
should not disturb the 'factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge
unless [it is] convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or
A-5389-18T3
3
inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to
offend the interests of justice.'" Ibid. (second alteration in original) (quoting
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)).
Plaintiff did nothing to cause the $3800 intercept. The money was put in
her bank account and she spent it. It was within the court's equitable powers to
allow the issue of her possible reimbursement of the money to abide the
emancipation of the youngest child, especially in light of the large outstanding
arrearages accumulated by defendant prior to the April 2018 order.
We accept defendant's position that the court mistakenly placed an
incorrect date of emancipation for the youngest child in the order. We remand
for the three-month correction.
Affirmed in part and remanded in part. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-5389-18T3
4