CourtListener opinion 2722563

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
 APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
 APPELLATE DIVISION
 DOCKET NO. A-2300-12T2

KATHLEEN KRUPINSKI,
n/k/a KATHLEEN GOCKLIN, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

 Plaintiff-Respondent/ September 2, 2014
 Cross-Appellant,
 APPELLATE DIVISION
v.

MICHAEL KRUPINSKI,

 Defendant-Appellant/
 Cross-Respondent.

_____________________________________

 Argued May 21, 2014 – Decided September 2, 2014

 Before Judges Fuentes, Fasciale and Haas.

 On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
 Chancery Division, Family Part, Sussex
 County, Docket No. FM-19-352-90.

 John V. McDermott, Jr., argued the cause for
 appellant/cross-respondent.

 Chris H. Colabella argued the cause for
 respondent/cross-appellant (Gruber, Colabella
 & Liuzza, attorneys; Mr. Colabella and
 Kristen C. Montella, on the brief).

 The opinion of the court was delivered by

FUENTES, P.J.A.D.

 Defendant Michael Krupinski appeals from the order of the

Family Part denying his motion to terminate his obligation to
 pay permanent alimony to his former wife, plaintiff Kathleen

Krupinski, n/k/a Kathleen Gocklin. Plaintiff cross-appeals the

court's decision to deny her application for an award of counsel

fees incurred defending defendant's motion. After reviewing the

record before us, we hold the Family Part mistakenly exercised

its discretion when it denied defendant's motion to terminate

alimony without affording the parties discovery and thereafter

determining whether an evidentiary hearing was warranted.

 Defendant's motion requires the trial court to address and

answer one key question it did not address in denying

defendant's motion to terminate alimony in 2010 and again in

2012. Specifically, the court must discern what part of the

$1,871 monthly pension benefits plaintiff has been receiving

since defendant's retirement in 2010 is attributable to

defendant's post-dissolution efforts, and thus may be considered

income to plaintiff for purposes of determining alimony, outside

the bar imposed in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b). The trial court erred

in denying defendant's motion without making this threshold

determination.

 We thus remand for the Family Part to enter a case

management order to afford the parties the right to engage in

limited discovery to ascertain each other's current financial

status, including medical and social needs. We leave the

 2 A-2300-12T2
 precise method and scope of discovery to the discretion of the

trial court. We suggest, however, that the judge confer with

counsel and thereafter enter a case management order limiting

the form of discovery to written interrogatories, requests for

admissions, production of documents, and updated Case

Information Statements (CIS) supported by copies of filed income

tax returns for the past three years. At the conclusion of

discovery, and after consultation with counsel, the court will

then be in a position to determine whether it is necessary to

conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual issues in

dispute.

 I

 The parties were both twenty-two years old when they

married in 1968, and had two children who are both emancipated

adults. They separated twenty years later on October 24, 1988.

With the assistance of independent counsel, they negotiated and

entered into a comprehensive property settlement agreement (PSA)

that covered all of the key issues associated with the

dissolution of marriage, including child support, the cost of

college education for the children, and most relevant here,

alimony, and equitable distribution. The PSA was incorporated

by the court to the final judgment of divorce (JOD) dated June

27, 1990.

 3 A-2300-12T2
 Defendant was a public school teacher at the time the

parties separated in 1988, earning an annual salary of

$45,798.28. He was enrolled in the Public Employment Retirement

System (PERS). With respect to the equitable distribution of

defendant's pension benefits, Paragraph 14 of the PSA provided

in relevant part as follows:

 It is agreed that at such time as the
 Husband starts to draw his pension, the Wife
 shall be entitled to one-third of each of
 the periodic pension payments made to the
 Husband. The Husband further agrees to
 execute such qualifying domestic relations
 order [QDRO] as may be necessary to direct
 the organization administering the pension
 to make the Wife's one-third share of each
 pension payment directly to the Wife.

 At the time the court entered the JOD in 1990, the PERS

recognized defendant had accumulated nineteen years and eleven

months of service as a public school teacher. The QDRO, which

for reasons not disclosed in the record was not filed until

October 5, 2000, provided, in relevant part, for the Division of

Pension and Benefits

 to withhold from [defendant']s gross monthly
 retirement allowances for equitable
 distribution payments to [plaintiff] an
 amount to be computed by multiplying the
 gross monthly retirement allowances by Fifty
 Percent (50%) and a coverture fraction in
 which the numerator will be the total number
 of years that the spouses were married while
 the member was a member of the retirement
 system (from September 1, 1969 to July 21,
 1989 or 19 Years 11 Months), and the

 4 A-2300-12T2
 denominator will be stated to be the total
 years of service credit accrued within the
 retirement system at the time of retirement.
 After payments commence to the Alternate
 Payee, they shall continue until the death
 of the Participant or the Alternate Payee.

 The Alternate Payee shall receive a pro-rata
 share of any cost of living adjustments or
 other economic improvements made to the
 Participant's retirement allowance on or
 after the date of his retirement. Such pro-
 rata share shall be calculated in the same
 manner as the Alternate Payee's share of the
 Participant's gross monthly retirement
 allowance is calculated pursuant to Section
 2 above.

 Defendant was sixty-four years old when he retired on April

1, 2010. He had accumulated forty-one years and five months of

service in the PERS. Of particular importance here, defendant

continued his education after the parties separated, and was

promoted to an administrative position, resulting in a

significant increase in salary. The Division of Pensions and

Benefits calculated his retirement benefits based on an annual

salary of $132,210.97, nearly three times the $45,798 salary he

was making as a teacher when he separated from plaintiff.

 With respect to alimony, Article II, Paragraph 4 of the PSA

obligated defendant to pay plaintiff $100 per week, the

equivalent of $430 per month ($100 X 4.3 weeks), subject to

termination only upon plaintiff's death, remarriage, or

cohabitation \with an individual to whom she is not related by