The New Jersey divorce judge ordered the mother to pay her share of the older son's college tuition. Finding the Probation Department erred in calculating her college expense obligation (assuming it ended when the son was declared emancipated), the case is remanded for a supplemental audit. Gonzalez v. Valentine, New Jersey App. Div., November 20, 2009
The New Jersey divorce judge properly considered all the criteria set forth in Newburgh v. Newburgh, in directing that the father should pay half of his daughters' college expenses. The father showed no evidence that the decision was incorrect. Papa v. Papa, New Jersey App. Div., October 16, 2009
Although the New Jersey divorce judge was correct in ordering the father to pay for his daughter's college education for the last semester of her junior year and her entire senior year, he should not have ordered further contributions for her freshman, sophomore, and first semester junior years because plaintiff had not requested that he do so until those semesters had ended. Pursuant to Gac v. Gac, it would be inequitable to require him to do so retroactively. Kmetz v. Fusaro, New Jersey App. Div., October 9, 2009
The New Jersey divorce judge reduced child support for 2 reasons : (1) because of the decline in the father's income; and (2) because of the eldest son's departure for college and the fact that his expenses would be covered by college payments. Recognizing the father's diminished earnings and his obligations to pay both college expenses and alimony, Judge Hansbury concluded child support should be reduced from $5750 monthly to $4250, then increased to $4750 after alimony was terminated. These decisions are now affirmed. Meyer v. Meyer, New Jersey App. Div., September 15, 2009
This case corroborates the well-established proposition that the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines do not apply, once children reach the age of 18. The father was seeking to reduce his child support for his 18 year old son, who is attending college. The New Jersey divorce judge denied the application without a plenary hearing and without oral argument. This was reversible error. Nesmith v. Nesmith, New Jersey App. Div., July 20, 2009
The federal government is moving to simplify the Free Application for Federal Student Aid [FAFSA], a notoriously complicated form that asks students and their families seeking financial aid for college as many as 153 question. In January, 2010, when next year’s form goes online, about 20 percent of the questions will be eliminated. These forms are filed to obtain Pell grants, Stafford loans, Perkins loans, work-study programs and state aid. But many students are scared off by the form. Federal authorities estimate that 1.5 million students eligible for Pell grants failed to apply. New York Times, June 22, 2009
The father was ordered to pay 35% of the college expenses of his two daughters. Because the parties' New Jersey divorce judgment did not address the issue, it had to be litigated. On appeal, the New Jersey divorce judge's ruling is affirmed. Although there may have been a dispute as to whether the mother consulted with the father about college issues, there was no evidence of estrangement between defendant and his daughters. Nor is there any evidence that he objected to his daughters attending college. DiRenzo v. Zigarelli, New Jersey App. Div., April 8, 2009
There was a discrepancy between the income reported by the father to taxing authorities and on his application to refinance. He made significantly different representations about his income, depending upon the forum, court, or loan application involved. So, the New Jersey divorce judge's orders with respect to his obligation to pay for his daughter's college expenses are affirmed. Horne v. Horne, New Jersey App. Div., April 2, 2009
Not only must the father contribute to his son's college education, but the motion to decrease alimony is denied. In addition, the father is found to have abused the judicial process by engaging in repeated duplicative, unsupported or incomprehensible motions, which might lead to the imposition of sanctions against him. Hernandez v. Hernandez, New Jersey App. Div., January 9, 2009
