Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Della M. Markferding v. David Lee Markferding
Date: 11-22-2024
Case Number: FM-09-0754-13
Judge: Not Available
Court: Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hundson County, New Jersey
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Jersey City Family Law Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Jersey City Family Law Lawyer Directory
Description:
Jersey City, New Jersey family law lawyers represented husband and wife in child support dispute case.
Married in August 1996, the parties were divorced in December 2013 after entering into a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) in late 2011 that addressed child support for their two young children. The MSA provided that defendant pay $700 monthly in child support and the parties split the cost of private school tuition and college related costs equally. The MSA further stated, "[a]lthough [defendant] anticipates that he will be able to split the[] college costs on a fifty/fifty (50/50) basis, he will be sixty-seven (67) years of age when the oldest child enters college, and may not be financially able to do so."
In late 2022, defendant filed a motion seeking various remedies regarding parenting time. Plaintiff filed a cross-motion seeking an upward modification of child support, alleging a significant change in circumstances as defendant no longer shared any parenting time and the oldest child was in college.[1]
After the court initially denied plaintiff's motion for increased child support, plaintiff sought reconsideration arguing, in pertinent part, that the oldest child's enrollment in college, including the associated cost of residential housing, was a significant change in circumstances. Plaintiff further argued that the last child support order in August 2019 factored in defendant's parenting time and social security derivative benefits received for the children, but defendant no longer exercised any parenting time and the two children aged out of eligibility for derivative benefits. Importantly, plaintiff acknowledged having no "specifics of [d]efendant's income or holdings . . . [but] believe[d] that his finances are beyond what he has represented in the past."
On March 10, 2023, the motion court granted plaintiff's cross-motion finding changed circumstances warranted recalculation of child support and ordered defendant to file an updated Case Information Statement (CIS) within fourteen days of that court order.
Defendant then repeatedly failed to provide court-ordered information, hampering the court's ability to calculate child support. Defendant, a roofer by trade, claimed without documentation that his health was declining, impeding his ability to work. Defendant did not provide a CIS until April 11, 2023, which the court deemed "materially incomplete" as it was devoid of information regarding defendant's income and incomplete as to expenses. The motion court ordered defendant to "file and serve a complete, updated [CIS]" no later than May 12, 2023. The second CIS did not comply with the court's order and did not contain the required income information. The record reflects the motion court granted defendant several adjournments of hearing dates and extensions to provide the required financial information.
Markferding v. Markferding, A-0380-23 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Nov 22, 2024)
Married in August 1996, the parties were divorced in December 2013 after entering into a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) in late 2011 that addressed child support for their two young children. The MSA provided that defendant pay $700 monthly in child support and the parties split the cost of private school tuition and college related costs equally. The MSA further stated, "[a]lthough [defendant] anticipates that he will be able to split the[] college costs on a fifty/fifty (50/50) basis, he will be sixty-seven (67) years of age when the oldest child enters college, and may not be financially able to do so."
In late 2022, defendant filed a motion seeking various remedies regarding parenting time. Plaintiff filed a cross-motion seeking an upward modification of child support, alleging a significant change in circumstances as defendant no longer shared any parenting time and the oldest child was in college.[1]
After the court initially denied plaintiff's motion for increased child support, plaintiff sought reconsideration arguing, in pertinent part, that the oldest child's enrollment in college, including the associated cost of residential housing, was a significant change in circumstances. Plaintiff further argued that the last child support order in August 2019 factored in defendant's parenting time and social security derivative benefits received for the children, but defendant no longer exercised any parenting time and the two children aged out of eligibility for derivative benefits. Importantly, plaintiff acknowledged having no "specifics of [d]efendant's income or holdings . . . [but] believe[d] that his finances are beyond what he has represented in the past."
On March 10, 2023, the motion court granted plaintiff's cross-motion finding changed circumstances warranted recalculation of child support and ordered defendant to file an updated Case Information Statement (CIS) within fourteen days of that court order.
Defendant then repeatedly failed to provide court-ordered information, hampering the court's ability to calculate child support. Defendant, a roofer by trade, claimed without documentation that his health was declining, impeding his ability to work. Defendant did not provide a CIS until April 11, 2023, which the court deemed "materially incomplete" as it was devoid of information regarding defendant's income and incomplete as to expenses. The motion court ordered defendant to "file and serve a complete, updated [CIS]" no later than May 12, 2023. The second CIS did not comply with the court's order and did not contain the required income information. The record reflects the motion court granted defendant several adjournments of hearing dates and extensions to provide the required financial information.
Markferding v. Markferding, A-0380-23 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Nov 22, 2024)
Outcome:
Vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Della M. Markferding v. David Lee Markferding?
The outcome was: Vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Which court heard Della M. Markferding v. David Lee Markferding?
This case was heard in Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hundson County, New Jersey, NJ. The presiding judge was Not Available.
Who were the attorneys in Della M. Markferding v. David Lee Markferding?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Jersey City Family Law Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Jersey City Family Law Lawyer Directory.
When was Della M. Markferding v. David Lee Markferding decided?
This case was decided on November 22, 2024.