NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-2468-18T4 BRENDEN RUH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JACQUELINE VAN CLEEF, Defendant-Respondent. ______________________________ Submitted March 3, 2020 – Decided April 14, 2020 Before Judges Currier and Firko. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County, Docket No. FM-18-0793-08. Dwyer, Bachman, Newman & Solop, attorneys for appellant (Elliot Steven Solop, of counsel and on the briefs; Lauren A. Conway, on the briefs). The DeTommaso Law Group, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Michael J. DeTommaso, on the brief). PER CURIAM In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Brenden Ruh appeals from the following Family Part orders: (1) the October 11, 2018 order (paragraphs four, five, and fourteen), directing him to pay to defendant Jacqueline Van Cleef base child support of $282 per week, plus $107 to account for a percentage of the parties' excess income, and denying his request to modify the parenting time schedule; and (2) the January 4, 2019 order (paragraphs one, two, and three), denying his motion for reconsideration. We affirm the order regarding parenting time. However, we reverse the order of child support and remand for further factual findings and an analysis of N.J.S.A. 2A:34 -23(a) and the applicable case law. I. We set forth only the procedural history and facts relevant to this appeal as derived from the motion record. The parties were divorced on September 29, 2008. They have a child born in February 2006. The final judgment of divorce incorporated a matrimonial settlement agreement (MSA), which was amended by a July 26, 2016 consent order. Under the consent order, plaintiff had parenting time with the child six out of every fourteen days commencing every Friday evening through Monday morning. A-2468-18T4 2 On August 8, 2018, defendant filed a motion seeking, amongst other relief, retroactive modification of plaintiff's child support obligation. At the time defendant's motion was filed, plaintiff's weekly child support obligation was $199.1 In her moving certification, defendant stated that plaintiff removed the child from his health insurance coverage in violation of the terms of the MSA without notifying her. Defendant certified it will cost her $212.60 per month to enroll the child in a healthcare plan providing medical, dental, and vision coverage. As a result, she argued plaintiff's credit for health insurance coverage should be abrogated and child support should be recalculated. Defendant also claimed that plaintiff's salaried income increased from $165,000 to between $300,000 and $500,000 annually, and in addition to his salaried employment, plaintiff owned and operated two side businesses. According to defendant, plaintiff's income from his side businesses should be considered in the re-calculation of child support. Defendant estimated that plaintiff's side businesses would increase his gross annual income ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals