Susan Marie Harte v. David Richard Hand
433 N.J. Super. 457, 81 A.3d 667 (2013)
Rule of Law:
When a court calculates a parent's child support obligation for children in multiple families, it must account for all support obligations to achieve an equitable result. A permissible method to ensure parity is to calculate each obligation twice—once as the primary order and once as the secondary order—and then average the two resulting amounts for each family.
Facts:
- David Richard Hand has three children, each with a different mother.
- His oldest son lives with him and his current wife, and this child's mother does not contribute to his support.
- His younger son lives with his mother, plaintiff T.B., to whom Hand pays child support.
- His youngest child, a daughter, lives with his former wife, plaintiff Susan Marie Harte, to whom he also pays child support.
- In 2003, Hand was seriously injured in a garage collapse, and in 2007 he received a personal injury settlement of $1.2 million.
- Following the settlement, Hand consented to an imputation of $57,200 in annual income for the purpose of calculating his child support obligations to both T.B. and Harte.
Procedural Posture:
- David Richard Hand moved in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, to reduce his child support obligations to Susan Marie Harte and T.B.
- The motion judge denied Hand's initial application but indicated a willingness to reconsider if he presented a vocational expert's report.
- Hand filed a new motion to reduce his support, this time submitting a vocational expert's report.
- On November 7, 2011, the motion judge denied Hand's request to reduce support, finding the expert report to be an inadmissible 'net opinion,' and calculated the support obligations for Harte and T.B. separately.
- The motion judge subsequently denied Hand's motion for reconsideration and awarded $600 in counsel fees to Harte.
- Hand (appellant) appealed the child support orders, the denial of reconsideration, and the counsel fee award to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, against Harte and T.B. (respondents).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court misapply the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines by calculating a parent's separate support obligations to children in different families without deducting the amount of the other support order from the parent's available income in each calculation?
Opinions:
Majority - Koblitz, J.A.D.
Yes, a trial court misapplies the Child Support Guidelines by calculating a parent's separate support obligations to children in different families without deducting the amount of the other support order from the parent's available income in each calculation. The Guidelines require prior child support orders to be deducted from an obligor's income because that income is not available for determining a current obligation. The trial court's method of ignoring the other support order in each calculation, while intended to create equality between the mothers, was improper as it resulted in an inappropriately high total support obligation for the father. To achieve parity among children and not penalize a child based on birth order, the court should calculate support for each child twice: once treating that child's order as primary and the other as secondary, and then vice versa. The two resulting calculations for each child should then be averaged to arrive at a final, equitable support amount.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear and practical method for family courts to address the complex issue of calculating child support for obligors with children in multiple households. By endorsing an averaging approach, the court creates a precedent that promotes fairness and consistency, ensuring that later-born children are not disadvantaged simply because their support order is established after another. This ruling reinforces the fundamental principle of the Child Support Guidelines that all of a parent's children should be treated equitably. It also highlights the need for judicial flexibility, including relaxing venue rules, to consolidate cases and achieve just outcomes when multiple support orders exist.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Susan Marie Harte v. David Richard Hand (2013)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"