Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0911-13T2
04-08-2016
ASHGAN BESADA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MEDHAT GEORGE ATTARA, Defendant-Appellant.
Medhat George Attara, appellant pro se. Ashgan Besada, respondent pro se.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Nugent and Higbee. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-1367-08. Medhat George Attara, appellant pro se. Ashgan Besada, respondent pro se. PER CURIAM
Defendant Medhat George Attara appeals from an August 9, 2013 order and an October 4, 2013 order. The former, signed by Judge Alberto Rivas, terminated his alimony obligation; required him to pay $100 weekly until his spousal support arrears are paid in full; denied without prejudice his claim for unreimbursed medical expenses; imputed annual income of $20,000 to plaintiff Ashgan Besada; and required Besada to pay weekly child support of $75.
The latter, signed by Judge Arnold L. Natali, Jr., denied Attara's motion to have Besada reimburse "overpaid arrears" because the court had previously adjusted the arrears; denied Attara's claimed credit for additional alimony payments; denied Attara's motion for increased child support from Besada; rejected Attara's claim the court had erred by underestimating Besada's income; and denied without prejudice Attara's request for unreimbursed medical expenses. Having considered Attara's arguments in light of the record and applicable legal principles, we find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm.
We discern the following facts from the record. Besada and Attara were married and had three children before their divorce. On March 11, 2013, Besada was remarried to Sherif Samaan. Attara filed a motion seeking various forms of relief.
Following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Rivas granted Attara's motion to terminate alimony retroactive to the date Besada remarried. The judge reduced Attara's alimony arrears from $25,340 to $20,229, crediting Attara for alimony payments made between March 11, 2013 and August 8, 2013.
At the August 9, 2013 hearing, Judge Rivas described a "current [p]robation report" which stated Attara's arrears totaled $25,340. That report is not in the record. --------
Judge Rivas further granted Attara's request for recalculation of child support, ordering Besada to pay $75 per week in child support. Attara submitted as evidence a newspaper article from 2013 identifying Besada as remarried to a fellow co-owner of a deli. He also presented the court with an incomplete court transcript from June 26, 2008, where Besada admitted to earning a $36,000 salary in 2007 prior to quitting her job as a Wendy's manager.
At the hearing on the motions, Besada admitted helping her husband by working at his deli. Judge Rivas therefore imputed $20,000 to Besada "based on the Department of Labor median income for people who own a grocery store." In making the calculation, the judge reduced Besada's support obligation by $22 to account for parenting time expenses.
Judge Rivas also found Besada improperly used Attara's health insurance and credited the $575 debt incurred from that charge towards Attara's alimony arrears. The judge ordered Attara to pay $100 per week toward alimony arrears. The judge denied Attara's request for reimbursement of medical expenses because he "failed to provide . . . a breakdown of the expenses per year, per child."
Attara then filed a motion for reconsideration in which he asked the judge not only to reconsider his prior order, but raised new issues. In response, Besada filed a cross-motion which is not the subject of this appeal. Attara did not request oral argument. The reconsideration motion with requests for other relief was decided on the papers by Judge Natali.
Judge Natali denied both Attara's request to be reimbursed $11,081 in overpaid arrears and his request for reimbursement of direct payments made to Besada prior to the dual judgment of divorce. Judge Natali noted Attara failed to provide sufficient proofs to be awarded the requested relief regarding the direct payments. The judge also concluded that Attara waived his right to seek reimbursement for direct payments made to Besada prior to the establishment of alimony in 2008 because Attara failed to raise an issue concerning those payments on at least three prior occasions when the issue was before the court.
Judge Natali did, however, adjust Attara's arrears down to $10,068 after finding that his income for the years 2009 and 2010 was $85,000 instead of $98,000 as erroneously stated in a June 22, 2009 order. The judge rejected Attara's claim that his arrears as of August 23, 2013 totaled $15,173 instead of $25,340.
Judge Natali also denied Attara's request for an increase in child support payments from Besada. Specifically, Judge Natali noted Attara's evidence of Besada's income was dated from 2008 or earlier. Additionally, Judge Natali denied Attara's request to have payment of counsel fees by Besada made directly to Attara instead of his attorney. With respect to Attara's request for Besada to sign a release for the children to have their passports renewed, Judge Natali determined there was no competent evidence presented to support such relief, as Attara did not even address this request in his certification.
Judge Natali also denied without prejudice, as had Judge Rivas, Attara's request that Besada pay a fifty-percent share of the children's medical, orthodontic, school, church, and special events expenses. The judge noted that Attara failed to attach a copy of the most recent order regarding each parties' reimbursement obligations pursuant to R. 5:5-4(a).
When we review Family Part orders, we defer to a trial judge's factual findings if they are "supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Spangenberg v. Kolakowski, 442 N.J. Super. 529, 535 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414, 428 (2015)). We will not disturb the judge's findings of fact unless they are "so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974).
Here, we discern from Attara's arguments no basis for rejecting either the findings of fact or conclusions of law resulting in Judge Rivas' entry of the August 9, 2013 order. Judge Rivas' fact finding is supported by the record and the judge aptly applied controlling legal principles to those facts. Nor do we find Judge Natali abused his discretion in his decisions reflected in the October 4, 2013 order.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, courts may modify an alimony and support order subsequent to a judgment of divorce. Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 145 (1980). Alimony and support orders are "always subject to review and modification on a showing of 'changed circumstances.'" Id. at 146 (quoting Chalmers v. Chalmers, 65 N.J. 186, 192 (1974)). "The party seeking modification has the burden of showing such 'changed circumstances' as would warrant relief from the support or maintenance provisions involved." Id. at 157 (quoting Martindell v. Martindell, 21 N.J. 341, 353 (1956)).
We first address Attara's claims that child support from Besada should be increased because she remarried. The Child Support Guidelines "exclude . . . 'income from other household members' including a current spouse who is 'not legally responsible for the support of the child for whom support is being established.'" Hudson v. Hudson, 315 N.J. Super. 577, 583 (App. Div. 1998) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-B, pp. 2031-32). However, the court may "disregard or adjust a guideline-based award in a particular case" when there is good cause. Ibid. (quoting Pressler & Verniero, supra, Appendix IX-A, p. 2005).
Here, Attara provided sufficient proof that Besada is now remarried to a small business owner and assists in the business. Judge Rivas therefore properly imputed $20,000 to Besada based on data from the United States Department of Labor, and ordered her to pay Attara $75 per week in child support. The court was presented with a newspaper article showing Besada working at a deli. The only evidence Attara presented to rebut Besada's imputed income of $20,000 was a partial transcript from 2008 where she admits to earning a $36,000 salary at a former job. We conclude judge Rivas did not abuse his discretion in determining the amount of the award.
With respect to overnight visitation, Attara alleges that Besada does not have any overnight visits with the children and therefore should not receive any credit under line nineteen of the child support worksheet. That is, Attara objects to the $22 adjustment in support for parenting time. Here, Judge Rivas found Attara is "not letting the kids go to Jersey City" to be picked up for overnights, therefore, he decided "to give [Besada] credit for overnights" based on a prior order permitting overnight visitation with Besada. Attara did not present any competent evidence besides his own testimony to rebut that conclusion. We further find Judge Natali did not abuse his discretion in adopting Judge Rivas' analysis to deny Attara's claim regarding child support.
Next we address Attara's claim for reimbursement of medical, orthodontic, school, church, and special events expenses. That request was initially denied by Judge Rivas because Attara "failed to provide the [c]ourt with a breakdown of the expenses per year, per child." On reconsideration, Judge Natali also denied Attara's request without prejudice, noting that Attara failed to attach a copy of the most recent order regarding each parties' reimbursement obligations pursuant to R. 5:5-4(a). Neither judge abused his discretion in denying without prejudice Attara's motion for reconsideration on that claim.
With respect to Attara's claim that he should be reimbursed for a purported $11,081 in overpaid alimony arrears, Judge Rivas was not presented sufficient proofs supporting the claim. Although Attara claims in his reconsideration application he presented evidence that his arrears as of August 23, 2013 totaled $15,172.71 instead of $25,340, Judge Natali noted he also did not receive any competent evidence to support this claim. Both judges were similarly presented with incomplete and incomprehensive evidence and argument regarding direct payments made to Besada prior to the judgment of divorce.
However, Judge Rivas did address Attara's alimony arrears and adjusted them from $25,340 to $20,229, as Attara was credited for alimony payments made following Besada's remarriage. Moreover, Judge Rivas found Besada improperly used Attara's health insurance and credited the $575 debt incurred from that charge towards Attara's alimony arrears.
Judge Natali, on the motion for reconsideration, also reduced Attara's arrears balance. He found it to be $10,068 after finding that his income for the years 2009 and 2010 was $85,000 instead of $98,000 as erroneously stated in a June 22, 2009 order.
Both judges were presented with a slew of requests by Attara presented through bald assertions with a morass of information to sift through, but little evidence to support his claims. Each of the judges did a yeoman's job of sifting through the arguments and granting relief where it was appropriate. See United States v. Hoffecker, 530 F.3d 137, 162 (3d Cir.) ("A skeletal 'argument', really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim. Especially not when the brief presents a passel of other arguments, as [defendant]'s did. Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs." (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991))), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1049, 129 S. Ct. 652, 172 L. Ed. 2d 615 (2008).
We find no errors by either judge and affirm both orders.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION