The court nevertheless considered plaintiff’s application to compel defendant to pay S.M.’s college expenses. The court observed that defendant’s continued failure to contribute to those costs could jeopardize S.M.’s enrollment at the school. The court found that, pursuant to the final judgment, defendant was responsible for seventy-six percent of S.M.’s college costs, while plaintiff was responsible for the balance. The court also commented upon and appears to have ruled on certain other relief sought in plaintiff’s cross-motion.
The court denied the parties’ motions for counsel fees. The court found that defendant’s motion was frivolous. The court further found that plaintiff’s cross-motion “also was deficient†because it raised “issues previously decided without even referencing the prior adverse decisions of the court, and to that extent is brought in bad faith.†The court stated that plaintiff had only prevailed on her application to compel defendant to contribute to S.M.’s college expenses and plaintiff “has not prevailed on her numerous prayers for relief.â€
The court entered an order dated December 19, 2007: (1) denying defendant’s motion to modify his alimony and child support obligation; (2) directing defendant to pay seventy-six percent of S.M.’s college costs, after application of all scholarships, grants, loans and work study monies received; and (3) denying the remainder of plaintiff’s cross-motion without prejudice.
On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by summarily denying most of the relief sought in her cross-motion because the subject matter of that cross-motion did not relate to the subject matter of defendant’s motion. The Appellate Division disagreed.
The Appellate Division held that:
Continue Reading