Kostas Petris v. Mary Petris

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0867-25 KOSTAS PETRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARY PETRIS, Defendant-Respondent. Submitted September 16, 2026 – Decided October 6, 2026 Before Judges Currier and Jacobs. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, Docket No. FM-03-0056-20. Kostas Petris, self-represented appellant. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM In this post-judgment matrimonial litigation, plaintiff appeals from the September 12, 2025 order denying his motion to reduce his child support obligation due to changed circumstances. We affirm. The parties were divorced in 2020. They had two children, born respectively in 2013 and 2014. The parties' Dual Final Judgment of Divorce (FJOD) incorporated a Marital Settlement Agreement (Agreement).1 Article 5 of the Agreement was entitled: "CIRCUMSTANCES OF PARTIES AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT." Article 5.1 set forth plaintiff was forty-seven years old and the owner of a landscaping company. His income in 2018 was approximately $62,549; his income in 2019 was approximately $32,690. It stated further: "For purposes of child support only, and in consideration of both economic and non-economic benefits derived from the business, income shall be imputed to [plaintiff] in the amount of $90,000 gross per year." Article 5.3 stated "both parties recognize these stipulated figures to be fair and reasonable given their respective work histories and present earning 1 Plaintiff provided only one page of the Agreement in his appendix, portions of which are redacted. The FJOD was not included. A-0867-25 2 capacities." Plaintiff's child support obligation was set pursuant to the Child Support guidelines at $142 per week. In July 2025, plaintiff moved for a reduction of his child support obligation based on changed circumstances. Plaintiff submitted federal tax returns reflecting gross income of $40,179 from his landscaping business in 2023 and $31,430 in 2024. Defendant opposed the application, stating in a certification that plaintiff owned several businesses and there were reasons for the agreed imputation of income. After oral argument, the court denied plaintiff's motion, finding plaintiff consented to the imputed income figure in the Agreement and that plaintiff's tax returns reflected income that was "not substantially different from the 2019 figure and d[id] not constitute a material change in circumstances." On appeal, plaintiff contends the court erred in denying his application for a reduction in child support without conducting a hearing and analyzing his ability to pay. Our scope of review of a Family Part order is limited. See Thieme v. Aucoin-Thieme, 227 N.J. 269, 282-83 (2016). We accord deference to Family Part judges due to their "special jurisdiction and expertise in family [law] matters." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998). Our review is bound by A-0867-25 3 the judge's findings so long as they are "supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Id. at 411-12 (citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). We will not disturb the factual findings and legal conclusions unless convinced they are "so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent" with the evidence presented. Cesare, 154 N.J. at 412 (quoting Rova Farms, 65 N.J. at 484 ). Plaintiff contends he submitted proof of changed circumstances which required the court to modify his child support obligation. New Jersey "has a strong public policy favoring [the] enforcement of agreements." Massar v. Massar, 279 N.J. Super. 89, 93 (App. Div. 1995) (citing Dep't of Pub. Advoc. v. N.J. Bd. of Pub. Utils., 206 N.J. Super. 523, 528 (App. Div. 1985)). This is particularly true in family actions, where "[t]he law grants particular leniency to agreements made in the domestic arena" and "allows judges greater discretion when interpreting such agreements." Guglielmo v. Guglielmo, 253 N.J. Super. 531, 542 (App. Div. 1992) (citing N.J.S.A. 2A:34- 23). Under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, the Family Part has the authority to modify child support "from time to time as circumstances may require." Spangenberg v. Kolakowski, 442 N.J. Super. 529, 535 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting N.J.S.A. A-0867-25 4 2A:34-23). New Jersey courts "have interpreted this statute to require a party who seeks modification to prove 'changed circumstances[.]'" Id. at 536 (quoting Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157 (1980)). The Family Part's consideration of "changed circumstances" includes a change in the parties' financial circumstances, whether the change is continuing, and whether the parties' agreement "made explicit provision for the change." Ibid. (quoting Lepis, 83 N.J. at 152 ). A plenary hearing is only required when a party demonstrates "the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact." Lepis, 83 N.J. at 159 . We see no reason to disturb the trial court's order denying a reduction in plaintiff's child support obligation. As the court found, plaintiff agreed to the imputed income figure in the parties' Agreement, and the income on his tax returns submitted in support of his motion is not substantially different than the income figures included in the Agreement. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a prima facie change in circumstances to warrant a plenary hearing or a modification of his child support obligation. Affirmed. A-0867-25 5