Preview:

a0492-08.opn.html

Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) Original Wordprocessor Version

This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO.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-0492-08T30492-08T3 VALERIE GENTILE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CHARLES GENTILE, Defendant-Respondent. __________________________________

Submitted: May 28, 2009 - Decided: Before Judges Cuff and Fisher. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division-Family Part, Cumberland County, Docket No. FM-06-189-92. Buonadonna & Benson, P.C., attorneys for appellant (Alan G. Giebner, on the brief). Robert J. O'Donnell, attorney for respondent. PER CURIAM In this post-judgment matrimonial appeal, we review an order emancipating the parties' eighteen year old daughter, terminating defendant's child support obligation, fixing his share of community college expenses, and awarding counsel fees to defendant. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Plaintiff Valerie Gentile and defendant Charles Gentile divorced in 1993. One child, a daughter, was born on February 15, 1990. On June 16, 2008, the parties' daughter graduated from high school with plans to enroll in the nursing program at Cumberland County Community College.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a0492-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 1:40:29 PM]

a0492-08.opn.html

The cost per semester of her course of study is $1624, including fees but exclusive of books. In order to remain in the program, a student must maintain a 3.0 GPA. To assure her continued participation in the program, their daughter surrendered her part-time employment in order to devote her full attention to the nursing program. She lives at home with plaintiff. Defendant paid $12,000 annually in child support. He offered to pay 75% of his daughter's net college expenses. He expected her to apply for any loans, grants or scholarships available to her. Defendant also expected that his child support obligation would cease because his daughter was now emancipated. Plaintiff filed a motion to obtain contribution to their daughter's college expenses in addition to defendant's child support obligation. Plaintiff suggested that defendant pay 50% of college costs defined as tuition, books and fees. Defendant responded with a cross-motion seeking the emancipation of his daughter with the consequent termination of his child support obligation, provision of all documents from the college, including transcripts, progress reports, financial aid applications and decisions, and attorneys' fees. At oral argument, the motion judge treated the issues of emancipation and contribution to college as mutually exclusive obligations and applied a self-constructed presumption to these obligations. The judge explained that he "emancipated [the daughter] for child support purposes but not for purposes of Newburgh v. Arrigo[.]" The judge then explained how he reached his tentative decision in this case. He stated: Now, in the facts before the Court, I have one child living at home, going to college. And when I have indicated that the child is emancipated for child support purposes, it's not a Newburgh case and I looked at the matter as if it's a Newburgh case. Does that mean under the appendices I cannot revisit child support for that particular child living at home? No. But it's, again, discretionary. In the majority of cases, I do not, as I did not this particular case. So that's the theory. That's the philosophy. Right or wrong, that's how it is. Earlier, the motion judge noted that he adopted this approach because the vast majority of people in the community in which he sits do not have sufficient income to pay child support and college expenses. Therefore, the judge entered an order emancipating the parties' daughter, requiring defendant to contribute 75% of net college expenses, ordering provision of transcripts, progress reports and financial aid applications and awards, and requiring plaintiff to pay $1000 in counsel fees. On appeal, plaintiff argues that their daughter is not emancipated, defendant has sufficient means to contribute to college expenses and pay child support, and the counsel fees award is erroneous. We agree.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a0492-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 1:40:29 PM]

a0492-08.opn.html

Emancipation of children is governed by case law and often by agreement between the parents. Here, we have not been provided with any agreement between the parties. Over time, several markers have been identified as creating a presumption of emancipation. These include reaching the age of eighteen, marriage, and enlisting in the armed forces. See Alford v. Somerset County Welfare Bd., 158 N.J. Super. 302, 310 (App. Div. 1978) (attainment of age eighteen establishes prima facie, but not conclusive proof of emancipation); Leith v. Horgan, 24 N.J. Super. 516, 518 (App. Div.) (marriage of child), rev'd, 13 N.J. 467 (1953); Slep v. Slep, 43 N.J. Super. 538, 543 (Ch. Div. 1957) (enlistment in the armed forces). The age of majority, now eighteen years of age, is hardly a hard and fast indicator of emancipation. Indeed, our Supreme Court and this court have held that reaching the age of eighteen "establishes prima facie, but not conclusive, proof of emancipation." Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 543 (1982); Dolce v. Dolce, 383 N.J. Super. 11, 17 (App. Div. 2006); Filippone v. Lee, 304 N.J. Super. 301, 308 (App. Div. 1997); Alford, supra, 158 N.J. Super. at 310. Ultimately, each case turns on its facts and "the essential inquiry is whether the child has moved 'beyond the sphere of influence and responsibility exercised by a parent and obtains an independent status of his of her own'." Filippone, supra, 301 N.J. Super. at 308 (quoting Bishop v. Bishop, 287 N.J. Super. 593, 598 (Ch. Div. 1995)). Measured by this standard, the parties' daughter is clearly not emancipated. She is a full-time student in a demanding program that counsels against even part-time employment. She lacks the means to live independently and does not do so. Rather, she resides with her mother at no cost to her. Although she graduated from high school in June 2008 and turned eighteen in February 2008, she is dependent on her parents and has not moved beyond their sphere of influence, and certainly is not independent. In short, she is not emancipated. The motion judge correctly held that defendant has an obligation under the Newburgh v. Arrigo standard to contribute to the post-secondary school education of his daughter. He also correctly held that the Child Support Guidelines, Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-A to R. 5:6A,

Download a0492-08.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law