Filed: Dec. 29, 2011
Latest Update: Dec. 29, 2011
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-mother appeals from a December 23, 2010 order denying her motion to enforce an alleged agreement that defendant-father would pay her $300 in child support. She contends that the judge misapplied the law and failed to consider evidence. We disagree and affirm. The parties have two children together. They attended a mediation session on April 13, 2010, and addressed defendant's child support obligations. Th
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-mother appeals from a December 23, 2010 order denying her motion to enforce an alleged agreement that defendant-father would pay her $300 in child support. She contends that the judge misapplied the law and failed to consider evidence. We disagree and affirm. The parties have two children together. They attended a mediation session on April 13, 2010, and addressed defendant's child support obligations. The..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-mother appeals from a December 23, 2010 order denying her motion to enforce an alleged agreement that defendant-father would pay her $300 in child support. She contends that the judge misapplied the law and failed to consider evidence. We disagree and affirm.
The parties have two children together. They attended a mediation session on April 13, 2010, and addressed defendant's child support obligations. The next day, plaintiff filed a motion for child support. The court then scheduled a child support hearing on May 5, 2010, plaintiff failed to appear, and the judge ordered defendant to pay $200 per week in child support.
On May 26, 2010, the parties appeared at another mediation session at which plaintiff alleges that they reached an agreement that defendant would pay $300 per week in child support. Defendant contends that at the May 26 session, the mediator attempted to bully him into paying $300 per week. Although the mediator prepared a document to memorialize the alleged agreement, defendant refused to sign it.
Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the May 5, 2010 order, but withdrew the motion and filed a motion to enforce the alleged settlement.1 The judge conducted a four-hour hearing, listened to the parties' testimony, and issued an oral opinion denying the motion.
We defer to the facts found by a Family Part judge "when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998) (citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). In denying plaintiff's motion, the judge stated:
The [c]ourt finds that [defendant] went to the [mediation] session in May of 2010, having previously received a court order [dated May 5, 2010] for child support in the amount of $200. [Defendant] stated that the mediator became bullying and adversarial and threatened to increase the child support to $400. The [c]ourt would note that these assertions remain uncontradicted by [plaintiff] in her testimony, and thus this motion[,] where the burden of proof is on [plaintiff] to establish that a meeting of the minds occurred at the mediation, . . . that there was just insufficient evidence to establish whether or not an agreement was reached at mediation.
We discern no reason to disturb the judge's factual findings. After considering the record and briefs, we conclude that the arguments advanced by plaintiff are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
