MAHNAZ FARZAN VS. REZA FARZANÂ (FM-13-0676-05, MONMOUTH 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0096-15T2
MAHNAZ FARZAN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
REZA FARZAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Argued June 7, 2017 – Decided June 30, 2017
Before Judges Simonelli, Carroll and Gooden
Brown.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,
Monmouth County, Docket No. FM-13-0676-05.
Reza Farzan, appellant, argued the cause pro
se.
Robert A. Abrams argued the cause for
respondent.
PER CURIAM
In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, defendant Reza
Farzan appeals from the July 22, 2015 Family Part order, which
denied his motion to emancipate his daughter, J.F.,1 and terminate
his child support obligation. For the following reasons, we
affirm.
We need not recite in detail the history of this matter, and
instead, incorporate herein the procedural and factual history set
forth in Farzan v. Farzan, No. A-1363-10 (App. Div. Oct. 26, 2011)
(Farzan I), and Farzan v. Farzan, No. A-0560-12 (App. Div. Sept.
30, 2013) (Farzan II), certif. denied, 217 N.J. 292 (2014). The
following facts are pertinent to our review.
Defendant and plaintiff Mahnaz Farzan executed a property
settlement agreement (PSA) that was incorporated into their final
judgment of divorce entered on June 25, 2009. The PSA required
defendant to pay child support for J.F., who was born in 1994, in
the amount of $190 per week, which later increased to $204 per
week with cost of living adjustments. The PSA also required the
parties to contribute to their children's college expenses to the
extent they were financially able to do so under the standard set
forth in Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982), or the law in
effect at that time.
1
We use initials to identify the daughter to protect her privacy.
R. 1:38-3(f)(6).
2 A-0096-15T2
The PSA provided that child support for J.F. terminated upon
her emancipation. Attaining the age of eighteen was deemed an
emancipating event unless J.F. was "pursuing a reasonably
continuous course of college education leading to an undergraduate
degree as a full-time day, undergraduate student at an accredited
college or university," in which event emancipation would not
occur until she reached age twenty-two.
In November 2011, defendant filed a motion seeking various
relief, including a request to terminate child support for J.F.
upon her upcoming eighteenth birthday. In a December 2, 2011
order, the trial court denied the motion.
Following J.F.'s graduation from high school, defendant filed
a motion to terminate child support as of June 12, 2012. Because
J.F. had been accepted as a full-time student at a New Jersey
college and received a substantial financial aid package, in an
August 21, 2012 order, the court denied the motion. In Farzan II,
we affirmed the August 21, 2012 order. Farzan II, supra (slip op.
at 1-2). We noted that not only was defendant's request to
terminate child support contrary to existing case law, it was
"expressly contrary to the PSA wherein defendant specifically
agreed to remain obligated to pay child support beyond the age of
majority so long as the child was not emancipated, which clearly
here had not yet occurred." Id. (slip op. at 9). We found
3 A-0096-15T2
defendant's other arguments, including: "(1) an unavailing equal
protection argument; (2) that plaintiff has disappeared; and (3)
that a plenary hearing was necessary," to be without sufficient
merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. Id. (slip op.
at 10) (citing R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E)).
Thereafter, on March 23, 2015, defendant filed a motion for
various relief, including: emancipating J.F.; terminating or
reducing child support; crediting him for overpaid child support;
requiring the court to explain to plaintiff her responsibilities
toward him and J.F. due to her receipt of child support; and
scheduling a plenary hearing. Defendant argued that J.F. should
be emancipated because she no longer resided with plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for a modification of the PSA
to reflect that J.F. be emancipated when she reached age twenty-
three, and for counsel fees. Plaintiff contended that J.F. was a
full-time student at a New Jersey college, resided on campus, and
would not graduate until age twenty-three because she was enrolled
in a five-year program. On May 7, 2015, plaintiff's attorney
hand-delivered a certification of services to the court and
defendant to support plaintiff's request for attorney's fees. At
oral argument on May 8, 2015, the court did not award plaintiff
counsel fees because the proofs were insufficient with regard to
4 A-0096-15T2
J.F.'s college enrollment. Thereafter, plaintiff provided proofs
that satisfied the court.
In a July 22, 2015 order, with an attached written statement
of reasons, the court found that although J.F. had reached the age
of majority, she continued to be a full-time student and therefore
required financial support from her parents. The court emancipated
J.F. as of May 30, 2017, when she graduated from college. The
court reduced defendant's child support obligation to $153.43 per
week based on the Child Support Guidelines, effective March 23,
2015. The court analyzed the factors enumerated in Rule 5:3-5(c)
and awarded plaintiff counsel fees in the amount of $1,889.75.
This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant raises fourteen separate points. In
Points I through VI, he contends that plaintiff and her attorney
violated federal and State laws, and the courts have violated his
federal and State constitutional rights, civil rights, human
rights, and discriminated against him. We have considered these
contentions in light of the record and applicable legal principles
and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Defendant's Points VII through IX concern the court's failure
to emancipate J.F. and terminate child support as of June 12,
2012. This issue was litigated on the merits in Farzan II. If
5 A-0096-15T2
an issue has been determined on the merits in a prior appeal it
cannot be re-litigated in a later appeal of the same case, even
if of constitutional dimension. Washington Commons, LLC v. City
of Jersey City, 416 N.J. Super. 555, 564 (App. Div. 2010) (citation
omitted), certif. denied, 205 N.J. 318 (2011).
Defendant's arguments in Points X through XIV relate to the
July 22, 2015 order. Defendant argues that the court erred by:
(1) not scheduling a plenary hearing; (2) not reducing his child
support obligation based on a change in circumstances; (3) not
explaining to plaintiff her responsibilities toward him and J.F.
due to her receipt of child support; (4) modifying the PSA without
his permission; and (5) awarding plaintiff counsel fees. We have
considered these contentions in light of the record and applicable
legal principles and conclude they are without sufficient merit
to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the court in
the well-reasoned July 22, 2015 statement of reasons.
Affirmed.
6 A-0096-15T2