IN THE MATTER OF JOHN P. WARNOCK (NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF FAMILY DEVELOPMENT) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2724-18T1
IN THE MATTER OF
JOHN P. WARNOCK
_____________________________
Submitted November 16, 2020 – Decided December 3, 2020
Before Judges Fasciale and Rothstadt.
On appeal from the Department of Human Services,
Division of Family Development, Office of Child
Support Services.
Fusco & Macaluso Partners, LLC, attorney for
appellant (Amie E. Dicola, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Mark D. McNally, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
John P. Warnock appeals from a January 14, 2019 final agency decision
by the Department of Human Services, Office of Child Support Services
(OCSS), which denied his challenge to its bank-account levy. Warnock's sole
contention is that this decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. We
disagree and affirm.
Warnock owes $31,549.08 in child support. On December 7, 2018, OCSS
obtained a levy on a bank account at Lakeland Bank. OCSS subsequently
notified Warnock of its levy, informed him that he could contest it, and provided
the contest form. Warnock filed a timely contest with OCSS, checking off the
"other" box and claiming the bank account's funds were proceeds from the sale
of his mother's home. As her durable power of attorney, Warnock claimed the
funds were used for his mother's financial obligations.
OCSS acknowledged Warnock's contest, but requested additional
information, specifically: (1) proof of power of attorney over his mother's
financial obligations; (2) proof of the sale of her property; (3) the last three
months of bank statements including deposit slips; and (4) his last three pay
stubs. Warnock supplied this information on January 14, 2019, and on the same
day, OCSS issued its Notice of Contest Resolution and Right to Appeal. In the
Notice, OCSS denied Warnock's contest, giving two reasons: "1) [o]utstanding
arrears balance and 2) [f]ailure to pay child support as court ordered."
Warnock appealed to us. OCSS filed a motion to remand seeking to
clarify its reasons for denying Warnock's contest, and on January 7, 2020, we
A-2724-18T1
2
granted that motion. On remand, OCSS issued a revised Notice of Contest
Resolution and Right to Appeal dated February 24, 2020, which denied the
contest and emphasized:
The levy will continue. [Warnock] stated in [his]
contest that [he is] Power of Attorney (POA) for [his]
mother and [he] handle[s] her financial obligations,
including those with funds obtained from the sale of her
property. Section ii of the POA provided states that
[he] can "conduct any business with any banking or
financial institution . . . with respect to any of my
accounts . . ." The "my" referring to [his] mother.
Statements provided from the levied bank account were
reviewed and found to be solely in [Warnock's] name.
It is not an account in [his] mother's name that [he]
accessed on her behalf nor is it a joint bank account.
The proof of deposits provided were also reviewed but
do not reflect the use of those funds for [his] mother's
financial obligations. Therefore, the levy will continue.
On appeal, Warnock raises the following point:
POINT I
THE COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE DENIAL OF
. . . WARNOCK'S CONTEST OF THE NOTICE OF
BANK LEVY AND OVERTURN THE LEVY UPON
. . . WARNOCK'S ACCOUNT WITH [THE] BANK
BECAUSE THE DECISION TO DENY THE CONTEST
WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND
UNREASONABLE, GIVEN THE AMPLE
DOCUMENTATION SUPPLIED BY . . . WARNOCK
AND THE COMPLETE LACK OF ANY BASIS TO
SUPPORT THE DENIAL OF THE CONTEST.
A-2724-18T1
3
Our review of an administrative agency's final determination is limited.
Burlington Cty. Bd. of Soc. Servs. v. G.W., 425 N.J. Super. 42, 45 (App. Div.
2012). We will intervene "only in those rare circumstances in which an agency
action is clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission or with other State
policy." Brady v. Bd. Of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997) (quoting George
Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994)). We should only
reverse when an agency's decision is "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or
[] not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." In
re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Henry
v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)).
New Jersey enacted the New Jersey Child Support Improvement Act
(Support Improvement Act), pertinently N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.53 and N.J.S.A.
2A:17-56.57, which authorizes the Department of Human Services (DHS) to
take action without a court order to recognize and enforce the authority of state
agencies, including the authority to "[s]ecure assets to satisfy [child support]
arrearages[.]" N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.53(g). "The [Support Improvement Act]
authorizes DHS to conduct quarterly data matches with banks and other financial
institutions based on the obligor's social security number in order to identify
financial assets, and to freeze and seize the funds in order to satisfy child support
A-2724-18T1
4
arrears." Spuler v. Dep't of Human Servs., 340 N.J. Super. 549, 550 (App. Div.
2001) (citing N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.53(g)(2), -56.57(d)).
As an administrative agency, OCSS uses its authority to locate financial
assets when "non-custodial parents . . . who owe past due child support that
equals or exceeds the amount of support payable for three months and for which
no regular payments are being made." Id. at 551 (alteration in original) (quoting
N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.57(a)). Once OCSS effectuates a bank levy freezing access
to funds, the child support obligor is given notice and instructed that he or she
may contest OCSS's action. See N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.57(d).
Here, OCSS had the statutory authority to levy the bank account, and it
provided Warnock with a notice of levy, as well as the contest form. After
Warnock contested by claiming the funds were proceeds from the sale of his
mother's home and for her care, OCSS requested further information, which it
reviewed prior to issuing its Notice of Contest Resolution and Right to Appeal.
On remand, OCSS issued a revised Notice and clarified its reasoning for denying
Warnock's contest. Warnock failed to address the revised notice in his merits
brief. Moreover, there is no evidence in this record establishing that his mother
jointly owns the bank account, nor evidence showing that the charges in the bank
statements were for his mother's care. Applying our settled standard of review,
A-2724-18T1
5
we therefore conclude OCSS did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or
unreasonably.
Affirmed.
A-2724-18T1
6