CONSTANCE BECKMAN v. CHRISTIAN BECKMAN (2011)

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, defendant Christian Beckman appeals from the December 30, 2009 order of the Family Part increasing his child support for the parties' adult disabled daughter to $246 per week, requiring him to pay his share of the daughter's unreimbursed medical expenses and other costs related to her care, and awarding plaintiff, Constance Beckman, $2,842.50 in counsel fees.   Defendant contends that (1) the judge erred in not properly considering his financial ability to pay the additional costs and expenses and the reasonableness of those expenses;  and (2) the counsel fee award to plaintiff was arbitrary and capricious because he acted in good faith in this matter.

Defendant, however, has patently failed to comply with our rules governing the contents of an appellant's brief.   His statement of facts does not “incorporat [e] all pertinent evidence․”  R. 2:6–2(a)(4).¹  Rather defendant simply offers conclusory descriptions such as:  “[p]laintiff filed a[m]otion to add additional expenses and costs to ․ [d]efendant's support obligation”;  and “[d]efendant filed a[r]eply [c]ertification opposing ․ [p]laintiff's [m]otion as he cannot afford the additional expenses let alone his current support obligation[.]”  Each of these statements is followed by citations to lengthy segments of the appendix.   Defendant cannot meet his obligation to provide us with a “concise statement of the facts material to the issues on appeal[,]” R. 2:6–2(a)(4), by “inviting us to search through the record ourselves.”  Spinks v. Twp. of Clinton, 402 N.J.Super. 465, 474 (App.Div.2008), certif. denied, 197 N.J. 476 (2009).²

In the absence of any elucidation by defendant as to (1) the expenses at issue;  (2) his financial situation;  or (3) any other information setting forth the specific bases on which he challenges the judge's decision, he fails to demonstrate any error warranting relief on the factual and legal grounds asserted.   We are, therefore, compelled to affirm the December 30, 2009 order in its entirety because, having reviewed the record, we discern no basis to conclude that the judge's findings “are so manifestly unsupported by and inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice.”  Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974) (internal quotations omitted).

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. In addition, defendant filed a formal brief but neglected to provide a table of citations of authorities cited, in violation of R. 2:6–2(a)(2)..  FN1. In addition, defendant filed a formal brief but neglected to provide a table of citations of authorities cited, in violation of R. 2:6–2(a)(2).

FN2. We note that the motion judge was apparently faced with a similar problem.   Plaintiff filed a motion to increase child support and compel defendant to contribute to their daughter's medical expenses;  she filed a fifteen-page certification setting forth her grounds for relief in detail and supported by exhibits.   Defendant filed a two-page certification in opposition, consisting of conclusory statements such as “I cannot afford to pay any more than what I am already obligated to pay[,]” and referring to his Case Information Statement with no description or analysis of the financial information it contains.   At oral argument, the judge stated that he “can't be expected to guess at issues.”.  FN2. We note that the motion judge was apparently faced with a similar problem.   Plaintiff filed a motion to increase child support and compel defendant to contribute to their daughter's medical expenses;  she filed a fifteen-page certification setting forth her grounds for relief in detail and supported by exhibits.   Defendant filed a two-page certification in opposition, consisting of conclusory statements such as “I cannot afford to pay any more than what I am already obligated to pay[,]” and referring to his Case Information Statement with no description or analysis of the financial information it contains.   At oral argument, the judge stated that he “can't be expected to guess at issues.”

PER CURIAM