In a Decision – Halonski v. Halonski, (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held:
The Appellate Division reversed the Trial Court’s utilization of a divorce Agreement ratio based upon the terms of the Divorce Agreement’s use of the term “Ability to Pay”.
The Motion Court was authorized to modify the contribution ratio to which the parties initially agreed. Handwritten language added to the Divorce Agreement allowed the court to consider the parties' "ability to pay." However, in exercising the authority to modify the agreed-upon contribution ratio, the court fixed a new ratio without the benefit of information pertaining to the parties' income during one of the applicable calendar years. Furthermore, the Motion Court did not account for the alimony Husband paid to Wife. Nor did the court make a finding that Wife was not able to pay the percentage of college expenses that had been agreed upon and set forth in Divorce Agreement. We therefore remand the case to the Motion Court to expand the record as needed and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the parties' ability to pay for their daughter's college education employed in the Divorce Agreement is subject to different interpretations, we remand for the motion court to determine what the parties intended when they negotiated and agreed upon the principal pay-down credit provision in the Divorce Agreement.