NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-4546-18T3 TUHIN PANDYA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROOPAL SHAH, Defendant-Respondent. _________________________ Submitted February 25, 2020 – Decided April 3, 2020 Before Judges Hoffman and Firko. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-1499-12. Paul Alexander Clark, attorney for appellant. Shane & White, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Lauren Ann Miceli, of counsel and on the brief; Kenneth A. White, on the brief). PER CURIAM Plaintiff ex-husband Tuhin Pandya appeals from March 25 and June 3, 2019 Family Part orders, amending his parenting time and child support obligations with respect to the parties' seven-year-old son, A.P. We affirm. I. We addressed the parties' marital settlement agreement (MSA) and subsequent divorce in plaintiff's previous appeal, Pandya v. Shah, No. A-3900- 14 (App. Div. Dec. 8, 2016) (slip op. at 7). We derive the following facts from the record. The parties married in September 2010. Defendant gave birth to A.P., their only child, in January 2012. Less than two weeks later, plaintiff filed for divorce, claiming defendant had an affair with her employer. After a year of litigation, the parties agreed to the terms of their MSA, which the court incorporated into their final judgment of divorce (FJD), entered on January 14, 2013. Among other things, the MSA addressed custody, parenting time, and child support, and set forth the equitable distribution of marital property; in addition, each party waived "any right to past, present or future alimony from the other party." Regarding A.P., the parties "agree[d] to retain joint legal custody over said minor child, with [defendant] maintaining the primary residential custody over A-4546-18T3 2 said child." The effect of the MSA was to designate defendant as the parent of primary residence (PPR) and plaintiff as the parent of alternate residence (PAR). The MSA initially provided plaintiff with limited parenting time: alternate weekend parenting time, beginning Saturdays at 12:00 p.m. and concluding Sundays at 6:00 p.m., in addition to two hours of parenting time every Tuesday and Thursday. Effective October 2013, the MSA expanded plaintiff's parenting time to include Friday overnights. This parenting time plan remained in place until the entry of the March 2019 order under review. The MSA further set plaintiff's child support obligation at $180 per week. Shortly after the parties finalized their divorce, plaintiff began filing motions, challenging the parties' MSA and FJD. Primarily, plaintiff argued, as he continues on this appeal, that defendant had hidden assets and unreported income, which the court should impute to defendant in determining the parties' parenting time and child support obligations. This litigation resulted in March 25 and April 17, 2015 trial court orders, entitling defendant to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals