Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Downgrading from a Porsche to a BMW

Downgrading from a Porsche to a BMW

Ratings: (0)|Views: 72|Likes:
Published by woodruff1

More info:

Published by: woodruff1 on Feb 01, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THEAPPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISIONSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYAPPELLATE DIVISIONDOCKET NO. A-5334-08T2BARBARA FORMAN,(f/k/a FROST)Plaintiff-Respondent,v.MARK FROST,Defendant-Appellant. ______________________________________________________ Argued September 15, 2010 - DecidedBefore Judges Axelrad and R. B. Coleman.On appeal from the Superior Court of NewJersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,Burlington County,
Docket No. FM-03-1447-04W.Gary L. Borger argued the cause forappellant (Borger Jones Matez & Keeley-CainP.A., attorneys; Mr. Borger, on the brief).Sarah N. Martine argued the cause forrespondent (Adinolfi and Goldstein, P.A.,attorneys; Ms. Martine, on the brief).PER CURIAMDefendant Mark Frost appeals from portions of a May 14,2009 post-judgment order granting, in part, the motion ofplaintiff Barbara Frost (now known as Forman) for enforcement oflitigant's rights. Defendant argues that the Family Part judgeerred in: (1) requiring payment of the equitable distributionJanuary 21, 2011
2award within 180 days, with the potential sanction ofincarceration in the event of non-compliance; (2) denying hisrequest to reduce his alimony obligation due to changedcircumstances; and (3) awarding counsel fees to plaintiff basedon findings of fact that do not have sufficient support in therecord to warrant such award. We are not persuaded bydefendant's arguments. Accordingly, we affirm the order asmodified.On June 1, 2004, after thirty-six years of marriage,plaintiff Barbara Frost filed a complaint for divorce againstdefendant Mark Frost. The final judgment of divorce, entered onAugust 25, 2006, by Judge Jeanne T. Covert of the Family Part,described the marital standard of living and the projectedexpenses of the parties based on that marital standard. Thejudge found that the parties lived an upper-middle classlifestyle that reflected expenditures between $28,000 and$30,000 per month and fixed defendant's alimony obligation at$9,500 per month.Subsequently, on plaintiff's 2008 motion for enforcement oflitigant's rights heard by Judge Patricia B. Roe, defendantcross-moved seeking, among other relief, a reduction in hisalimony obligation. Defendant noted that Judge Covert found hisgross annual income was $357,000, resulting in $214,000 annual
3disposable income, with $17,858 in disposable income per month.He argued that his alimony obligation should be modifiedbecause: (1) he had not drawn a salary from his law firm, Frost& Zeff, for the last two years, but instead drew money in theform of loans from the firm's line of credit; (2) Frost & Zeff was in a dire financial state; (3) his actual income via Frost &Zeff's income and credit line advances was only $304,000; (4)his compliance with Judge Covert's order to lift the lien on themarital home held by T.D. Bank North resulted in his beingforced to resort to using Counsel Financial (CF) as a lender atan eighteen percent interest rate, since T.D. Bank North wouldnot relinquish the lien unless it was paid in full; (5) theinterest accrued from CF loans in the course of one year was$171,000; (6) he was paying approximately $30,000 per year forhis son's graduate school and living expenses; (7) he wished torent the marital home as plaintiff no longer resided there; and(8) he was "doing the best to tighten his belt," his examplebeing that he traded in his Porsche and leased a BMW, saving$400 a month.In an order entered August 1, 2008, Judge Roe denieddefendant's application for an order reducing alimony, statingshe was not "satisfied defendant ha[d] met his burden ofdemonstrating a substantial change in circumstance."

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->