A recent appellate court decision has overturned a lower court order that required one divorced parent to reimburse the other for private school tuition payments made for their child, as well as contribute to future tuition costs. The case underscores the significance of adhering to jointly agreed-upon terms in divorce settlements regarding financial commitments for children.
The appeal was filed by Fiore C. Pennachio in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, under Docket No. A-1925-24. The complaint named Theresa Sperber as the plaintiff-respondent and was decided on April 2, 2026.
According to the court documents, the parties married in 2011 and had a child, referred to by pseudonym Ophelia, in 2012. They divorced on November 2, 2015. Their divorce judgment included a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) dated November 1, 2015. Under this agreement, both parents shared joint legal custody and were required to make all major decisions about their child’s health, education, religion, and welfare together. The MSA specifically stated that neither parent could unilaterally bind the other financially for commitments related to their child: “neither party shall make any commitment obligating the other financially for the child.” Child support was set at $307 per week and later increased to $379 per week due to cost-of-living adjustments.
After continued disputes over custody and parenting time, a comprehensive consent order was executed governing these issues along with financial obligations. This order reiterated that “no major parental decisions regarding the child’s health, education, religion, and general welfare… shall be made unilaterally without the other parent’s consent.” It also provided that disagreements should be brought before the court if consensus could not be reached.
Despite these agreements, at the start of the 2022-2023 academic year, Sperber enrolled Ophelia at Oak Hill Academy—a private school—without consulting or obtaining consent from Pennachio. Although scholarships and financial aid were secured by Sperber, approximately $8,000 remained due each year for tuition and related costs.
Following this enrollment and a decline in Pennachio’s parenting time—which he attributed to interference by Sperber but which she disputed—Sperber sought modifications to their financial arrangements. She requested recalculated child support based on changed circumstances; contributions from Pennachio toward tuition retroactive to January 2022; and relief concerning medical and extracurricular costs. In response, Pennachio argued that he could not be unilaterally obligated for private school expenses according to their agreements.
The Family Part judge ordered Pennachio to pay fifty percent of Ophelia’s tuition retroactive to January 1, 2022—even though there was no written agreement or consent for private school enrollment—and imposed an ongoing obligation for future years. The judge cited being “moved by the significant external funding” obtained by Sperber but did not provide further justification beyond wishing not “to deprive the child of this continued educational opportunity.” At the same time, Pennachio’s child support obligation was reduced.
Pennachio appealed this decision. The appellate opinion emphasized that while courts generally defer to factual findings made by Family Part judges when supported by credible evidence, legal conclusions—including interpretations of settlement agreements—are reviewed anew without deference: “we pay no special deference to the Family Part’s court’s interpretation and look at the contract with fresh eyes.” Citing established New Jersey policy favoring consensual agreements in matrimonial matters and basic contract principles governing such settlements, the opinion noted: “when the intent of the parties is plain and language is clear…a court must enforce the agreement as written.”
The appellate panel found that Sperber had violated both the MSA and subsequent consent order by enrolling Ophelia in private school without consultation or mutual agreement with Pennachio. By ordering him to pay half of these costs retroactively—and prospectively—the lower court had exceeded its authority: “she effectively created ‘a better deal than that for which the parties expressly bargained.'” The panel concluded there was no emergency justifying unilateral action nor evidence warranting deviation from agreed procedures.
As a result, those portions of the Family Part order requiring Pennachio’s contribution toward past or future tuition were reversed: “Plaintiff must confer with defendant regarding future educational expenses.”
Theresa Sperber represented herself during proceedings; Fiore C. Pennachio was represented by Kristin S. Pallonetti from Law Office of Steven P. Monaghan LLC. The case identification is Docket No. A-1925-24.
Source: A192524_Sperber_v_Pennachio_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
