Accardi v. Accardi: Extraordinary Expenses Outside of The Child Support Guidelines
In Accardi v. Accardi, 369 N.J. Super. 75 (App. Div. 2004), the Appellate Division examined, among other issues, the issue of extraordinary expenses incurred for childrens’ activities. In doing so, the Appellate Division found the following: (1) where there are factual disputes regarding extraordinary expenses for children, “the moving party bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that the expenses [being] claim[ed] are both legitimate and reasonable.” Id.; and (2) “extraordinary expenses that are not predictable and recurring should be shared between the parents in proportion to their relative incomes as incurred” Id. at 89.
In Accardi, the parties were divorced on February 22, 1996. Id. at 77. However, prior to the parties’ divorce, the trial court issued an order on September 2, 1994 directing defendant to pay plaintiff unallocated support effective August 1, 1994. Id. at 86. At the time of the parties’ divorce, the defendant’s support obligation changed, and defendant had an obligation to pay both child support and alimony. Id. at 77-78. Following the parties’ divorce, there were a multitude of post judgment motions filed with the trial court regarding defendant’s child support obligation and extraordinary expenses incurred on behalf of the parties’ children. The trial court issued orders that in part, recalculated defendant’s child support obligation which included a 14.6% upward adjustment of child support for the parties’ oldest child, and directed defendant to pay extraordinary expenses in addition to his child support obligation. The defendant appealed three of the trial court’s orders, and argued plaintiff had an obligation to plaintiff to present proof of the children’s extraordinary expenses in each of the orders; [and] (2) characterizing the children’s extracurricular activities as extraordinary expenses, adding them to defendant’s support obligations and improperly calculating them in the child support worksheets appended to the orders….” Id. at 84.
In addressing defendant’s argument regarding plaintiff’s failure to provide proof of the children’s extraordinary expenses, the Appellate division found the plaintiff did not prove proof of the extraordinary expenses and merely provided a list of activities and amounts. Id. The Appellate Division stated “…the moving party bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that the expenses she is claiming are both legitimate and reasonable. A mere listing of the purported expenses, without more, is insufficient. An evidentiary hearing is necessary under such circumstances before a motion judge can make a fair and reasonable determination of the disputed issues.” Id.
Finally, in addressing the trial court’s characterization of certain expenses incurred for the children as extraordinary expenses, the Appellate Division acknowledged that children in high income families are “entitled to the benefit of financial advantages available to them.” Id. at 88 citing Issacson v. Issacson, 348 N.J. Super. 560, 579 (App. Div. 2003). The Appellate Division reviewed Appendix IX-A and IX-B of the New Jersey Court Rules and found that per Appendix IX-A, paragraph 9 “… because some child related expenses represent large or variable expenditures… it is not appropriate to include them in Appendix IX-F basic child support awards… . If incurred in a particular case, [such] expenses should be added to the basic support obligation as extraordinary expenses. Subparagraph (d) indicates that extraordinary expenses are private elementary or secondary education, special needs of gifted or disabled children and NCP/PAR time transportation expenses…”. Id. at 89. The Appellate Division further found that per Appendix IX-B, line 11 “… extraordinary expenses for a child that are not predictable and recurring should be shared between the parents in proportion to their relative incomes as incurred.” Id. Examining the various expenses described by plaintiff as extraordinary expenses, such as gymnastics, art, and horseback riding, the Appellate Division determined that these expenses did not fit the category of the extraordinary expenses contemplated in the Guidelines, but could, in the discretion of the trial court, be added to the child support obligation of a high income earner. Id.
Relying on its analysis of extraordinary expenses, the Appellate Division reversed the extraordinary portions of each trial court order under appeal and remanded the same for a plenary hearing. Id. at 90.
For questions regarding extraordinary expenses, child support, or any other family law related issue, please contact the attorneys of Ulrichsen Rosen & Freed LLC. Our firm is focused exclusively on the practice of family law and serves clients throughout New Jersey including clients residing in Mercer County, Somerset County, Hunterdon County, Burlington County and Middlesex County.
