Preview:

a2645-09.opn.html
Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2645-09T1
LISA ANTONUCCI,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM M. ANTONUCCI, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
June 3, 2011
Submitted May 10, 2011 - Decided
Before Judges Yannotti and Skillman.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2645-09.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:30:59 PM]




a2645-09.opn.html
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family
Part, Morris County, Docket No. FM-14-11820-90.
William M. Antonucci, Jr., appellant pro se.
Lisa Antonucci, respondent pro se.
PER CURIAM
Defendant William M. Antonucci, Jr., appeals from an order entered by the Family Part on January 27,
2010, denying without prejudice his motion to terminate or reduce his child support obligation, and granting
a cross-motion by plaintiff Lisa Antonucci1 to enforce litigant's rights. We affirm.
This appeal arises from the following facts. The parties were married on March 19, 1982. Three children
were born of the marriage - a girl named Stephanie and twin boys named Zachary and Spencer. The
marriage was dissolved by a final judgment of divorce dated November 9, 1990, which provided, among
other things, that the parties would share joint legal custody of the children. The judgment additionally
provided that defendant would pay plaintiff child support for the children. A post-judgment order entered
on August 20, 1993, required defendant to pay $150 per week in child support.
In September 2005, defendant filed a motion seeking an order declaring Stephanie emancipated and
reducing his child support from $150 to $100 per week. The motion was supported by a case information
statement in which defendant provided certain financial information, including his then-current income. In a
certification filed in support of his motion, defendant stated that he and plaintiff had very little
communication and he did not have any information concerning her income. Defendant also stated that
plaintiff was employed as a "Human Resources Administrator," and according to statistics of the United
States Bureau of Labor, persons holding similar jobs earned $26.35 per hour in the New York metropolitan
area.
The trial court entered an order dated November 22, 2005, which stated that Stephanie was deemed
emancipated and ordered defendant to pay child support in the amount of $189 per week, an amount
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2645-09.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:30:59 PM]




a2645-09.opn.html
determined pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines. Defendant appealed from the court's order. While the
appeal was pending, defendant filed another motion in the trial court seeking a declaration that Zachary
and Spencer were emancipated because they were eighteen years of age and would graduate from high
school in June 2006.
The trial court entered an order dated July 17, 2006, denying the motion to emancipate Zachary and
Spencer. The court ordered defendant to continue to pay child support in the amount of $189 per week, as
provided in the court's November 22, 2005, order. In a statement of reasons appended to the order, the
court noted that the twins would be attending college beginning in the Fall of 2006. The court also noted
that plaintiff had not sought to compel plaintiff to bear a part of Zachary's and Spencer's college expenses.
The court pointed out that, because the twins were not emancipated, they were entitled to continuing
support from their father.
Thereafter, in an unpublished opinion, we reversed the provision of the trial court's November 22, 2005,
order increasing defendant's child support obligation from $150 to $189. Piszel v. Antonucci, No. A-2150-05
(App. Div. Aug. 1, 2006) (slip op. at 5). In our opinion, we stated that the trial court erred by "failing to
require plaintiff to submit a current case information statement reflecting her actual current income and
failing to redetermine defendant's current child support obligation in light of that actual income figure." Id.
at 4-5. We remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Id. at 5.
Defendant appealed from the trial court's July 17, 2006, order. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the
court's order substantially for the reasons stated by the court in the statement attached to the order. Piszel
v. Antonucci, No. A-6056-05 (Mar. 15, 2007) (slip op. at 2).
It appears that sometime in 2007, defendant filed another motion seeking an order declaring that Zachary
was emancipated. Plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved to continue defendant's $189 per week
child support obligation in lieu of any additional college expense contribution. The court filed an order dated
April 30, 2007, denying defendant's motion and granting plaintiff's cross-motion. In a statement of reasons
appended to the April 30, 2007, order, the court noted that it had entered an order on July 17, 2006,
denying defendant's motion to emancipate the twins and ordering the continuation of child support in the
amount of $189 per week in child support. The court observed that plaintiff had not sought any additional
contribution by defendant towards the twins' college education other than the $189 per week in child
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2645-09.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:30:59 PM]




a2645-09.opn.html
support. The court also noted that defendant had appealed the July 17, 2006, order and this court had
affirmed the order. Defendant did not appeal from the trial court's April 30, 2007, order.
In January 2009, defendant filed a motion seeking to terminate or reduce his child support obligation due
to changed circumstances. In a certification submitted in support of that motion, defendant stated that
Zachary and Spencer were adults, were gainfully employed, owned their own vehicles, and were capable of
contributing to their own support. Defendant also stated that he had been employed as an automotive
technical instructor but was unemployed as of December 31, 2008, and had no "income of any sort." He
said that his search for a new job had been "fruitless." The court entered an order dated February 27,
2009, denying defendant's motion.
On March 27, 2009, defendant filed another motion seeking to terminate or reduce his child support
obligation and to instruct the Probation Department to eliminate all arrears that had accumulated as a
result of the "erroneously calculated child support obligation." In his supporting certification, defendant
noted that our August 1, 2006, opinion had vacated the increase of his child support obligation from $150
to $189 and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Defendant stated that the trial
court had never reviewed the increase in child support and, therefore, there could not be any arrears
resulting from his failure to pay that increase. In addition, defendant provided further facts concerning his
efforts to obtain employment, which he again said had been "fruitless." Plaintiff opposed defendant's motion
and filed a cross-motion to enforce litigant's rights. The court entered an order dated June 19, 2009,
denying the motions.
In November 2009, defendant filed the motion that resulted in the order at issue in this appeal. He again
sought an order terminating or reducing his child support obligation based on changed circumstances and
eliminating all arrears resulting from what he said was the erroneously-calculated child support obligation.
Plaintiff opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion to enforce litigant's rights.
The trial court entered an order dated January 27, 2010, denying defendant's motion and granting plaintiff's
cross-motion. The court ordered the Probation Department to continue to assist plaintiff in her efforts to
recover defendant's child support arrears.
In a statement of reasons appended to the order, the trial court noted that, while this court in its August 1,
2006, opinion had reversed the part of the November 22, 2005, order increasing defendant's child support
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2645-09.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:30:59 PM]




a2645-09.opn.html
obligation, the trial court had also entered an order dated July 17, 2006, which denied defendant's motion
to emancipate the twins and directed defendant to continue to pay child support in the amount of $189 per
week.
The court observed that, when it entered the July 17, 2006, order requiring defendant to continue paying
child support in the amount of $189 per week, it had "rejected the proposition that the amount of the
support was inappropriate based in part on the fact that [p]laintiff had decided to forego efforts to recover"
a share of the twins' college expenses from defendant. The trial court pointed out that this court had
affirmed its July 17, 2006, order.
The trial court also found no basis to terminate defendant's child support obligation on the ground that the
twins were no longer attending college and were allegedly working full time. The court noted that plaintiff
had provided the court with proof that the twins were continuing to attend college on a full-time basis. In
addition, the court found no basis to terminate defendant's child support obligation because defendant was
unemployed. The court stated that defendant had failed to show that his unemployment, while unfortunate,
was "anything other than a temporary setback."
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to recognize and comply with our August
1, 2006, opinion vacating the increase of child support from $150 to $189 per week. He contends that the
trial court's July 17, 2006, order requiring continued payment of child support in the amount of $189 per
week was based on the November 22, 2005, order, which had been reversed. Defendant also argues that
the trial court erred by failing to terminate his child support obligation on the basis of his unemployment.
He contends that fifteen months of unemployment cannot be viewed as a "temporary setback."
We have carefully reviewed the record before us and conclude that defendant's arguments are without
merit. We accordingly affirm the trial court's order of January 27, 2010, substantially for the reasons stated
by the trial court. We add the following comments.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to reduce his child support obligation in accordance
with our August 1, 2006, opinion. However, as we have explained, although our August 1, 2006, opinion
vacated the increase in child support as provided in the November 22, 2005, order, we subsequently
affirmed the trial court's July 17, 2006, order, which required defendant to pay child support in the amount
of $189 per week. We are satisfied that the trial court correctly found that defendant was bound by the
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2645-09.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:30:59 PM]




a2645-09.opn.html
July 17, 2006, order, which required defendant to pay child support in the amount of $189 per week.
We note that the trial court's April 30, 2007, order also required defendant to continue to pay child
support in the amount of $189 per week. Moreover, when the trial court entered that order, the court
stated that plaintiff sought continuation of those payments in lieu of seeking any additional contribution
from defendant towards the cost of sending the twins to college. Defendant never appealed from the April
30, 2007, order. Defendant is bound by that order as well.
Defendant additionally argues that the trial court erred by finding that he failed to present a prima
facie case of changed circumstances which warranted plenary review of his application to terminate child
support. According to defendant, he became unemployed as of December 31, 2008. Defendant filed several
motions to terminate or reduce his child support obligation based on changed circumstances. The motion
that resulted in the order at issue on this appeal was filed in November 2009, when defendant had been
unemployed for less than a year.
As the trial court recognized, there is no bright-line rule establishing a period of time that must pass
before a change is deemed permanent for purposes of reducing child support or alimony. Larbig v. Larbig,
384 N.J. Super. 17, 23 (App. Div. 2006). We are satisfied that the trial court did not err by finding that, as
of January 27, 2010, defendant had not been unemployed long enough to consider the change in his
employment status permanent.
Affirmed.
1 We note that during the course of these proceedings, plaintiff has been referred to at times as "Lisa
Piszel." She is identified as "Lisa Antonucci" in the order at issue in this appeal.
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2645-09.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:30:59 PM]

Download a2645-09.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law