DAMARIS SANTIAGO VS. JUAN A. ISALES (FM-12-0544-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1242-16T1
DAMARIS SANTIAGO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JUAN A. ISALES,
Defendant-Respondent.
____________________________
Submitted March 19, 2018 – Decided July 26, 2018
Before Judges Accurso and Vernoia.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex
County, Docket No. FM-12-0544-15.
Damaris Santiago, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Damaris
Santiago challenges an October 14, 2016 order denying her request
to vacate that portion of a August 19, 2016 order designating
defendant Juan A. Isales as her attorney in fact for the purpose
of signing a listing agreement and other documents necessary for
the sale of property located at XXX Oak Street in Perth Amboy. We
affirm.
Following almost forty-five years of marriage, the parties
divorced in July 2015. Their Dual Final Judgment of Divorce
incorporated by reference a Matrimonial Settlement Agreement (MSA)
which granted defendant exclusive possession of the Oak Street
property,1 and required that the property be listed with a realtor
and sold. The MSA further required that the parties receive equal
shares of the net equity in the property, subject to the allocation
of specified credits.
Within weeks of their divorce, plaintiff moved to compel
defendant to sell his interest in the property to her. Defendant
cross-moved for an order finding plaintiff in violation of
litigant's rights by failing to sign a listing agreement and
appointing defendant as plaintiff's attorney in fact for the
purpose of signing the listing agreement. On September 4, 2015,
the court entered an order denying plaintiff's motion to modify
the MSA's provisions concerning the sale of the Oak Street property
1
The parties also owned property at YYY Oak Street and agreed to
sell that home as well. This appeal pertains only to the XXX Oak
Street property.
2 A-1242-16T1
and her request to compel defendant to sell his interest in the
property to her. The court also denied defendant's cross-motion.2
Ten months later, plaintiff filed a second post-judgment
motion and supplemental motion requesting, among other things,
that the court compel defendant to sell plaintiff his interest in
the Oak Street property. Defendant again cross-moved for an order
finding plaintiff in violation of litigant's rights for refusing
to sign a listing agreement, and designating defendant as
plaintiff's attorney in fact for purposes of executing the listing
agreement and all other documents required to sell the property.
In an August 19, 2016 order, the court denied plaintiff's
motion to modify the MSA "as it relates to" the Oak Street
property, and compel defendant to sell his interest in the property
to her. The court granted defendant's cross-motion, found
plaintiff in violation of litigant's rights by refusing to sign a
listing agreement and appointed defendant as plaintiff's attorney
in fact for purposes of signing the listing agreement and the
other documents required to sell the property.3
2
The court's order states that the denials of the parties' motions
were for reasons set forth on the record on September 4, 2015.
Plaintiff has not supplied the transcript of the court's September
4, 2015 statement of reasons.
3
The court's order stated that the reasons for the court's
decisions were set forth on the record on August 19, 2016.
3 A-1242-16T1
Defendant subsequently listed the property for sale with a
realtor and entered into a contract of sale, executing the
necessary documents as plaintiff's attorney in fact pursuant to
the court's August 19, 2016 order. In September 2016, plaintiff
moved in part to revoke defendant's authority to execute documents
as her attorney in fact and, again, to require that defendant sell
his interest in the property to her. Defendant cross-moved for
dismissal of plaintiff's motion and an award of attorney's fees.
In an October 14, 2016 order, the court denied both motions.
The sale of the property was scheduled for November 23, 2016.
On November 21, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion returnable on
December 16, 2016, requesting that she be permitted to purchase
defendant's interest in the property. More particularly,
plaintiff sought an order permitting her to purchase defendant's
interest in the property for $112,000 based on an estimate of the
property's value she obtained from the internet, and with the
contingencies that defendant agree to remove her name from a credit
card account they shared and waive his right under the MSA to a
$25,000 credit against the equity in the home.
Plaintiff has not provided the transcript of the court's statement
of reasons.
4 A-1242-16T1
The filing of plaintiff's motion delayed the closing.
Defendant filed an order to show cause seeking an order again
authorizing his execution, as plaintiff's attorney in fact, of the
documents necessary to complete the sale. During the December 5,
2016 oral argument on defendant's application, his counsel advised
the court that the purchaser of the property had served a notice
stating the closing must occur on December 6, 2016, and asserting
time was of the essence. Counsel represented that defendant would
"be sued" if he did not timely complete the sale. Counsel further
argued plaintiff's ongoing opposition to the sale constituted an
effort to modify the express terms of the MSA to which she had
voluntarily agreed. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, contended
defendant was not paying the taxes on the property as required,
and that she should be permitted to purchase his interest so she
no longer had to rent a place to live.
In an opinion from the bench, the court found the property
was "under contract to be sold with the time of the essence closing
. . . scheduled for [the following day], December [6], 2016," and
if the closing did not occur, plaintiff and defendant were subject
to a lawsuit. The judge observed the sale of the property was
consistent with the terms of the MSA, which was negotiated by the
parties while represented by counsel and entered into voluntarily.
The judge further found plaintiff's series of motions sought a
5 A-1242-16T1
modification of the MSA, but the "bottom line is there is no basis
for changing the" MSA.
The judge entered a December 5, 2016 order granting defendant
the power to act as plaintiff's attorney in fact to complete the
sale of the property. In his oral opinion, the court also denied
plaintiff's November 21, 2016 motion for an order permitting her
to purchase defendant's interest in the property. This appeal
followed.
On appeal, plaintiff presents the following arguments for our
consideration:
POINT I
THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY FAMILY COURT ERRED BY NOT
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT JJ ELEK ALTERED
THE XXX OAK ST. PROPERTY DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT
BY [CHECKING] THAT THE PROPERTY HAD TERMITES
AS THIS WAS FALSE INFORMATION ACCORDING TO AN
INSPECTION DONE LATER ON BY HOME QUEST AND
LETTER FROM ATTORNEY KENNETH GONZALEZ[.]
POINT II
THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY FAMILY COURT ERRED BY
GRANTING DEFENDANT ATTORNEY IN FACT TO SELL
PROPERTY XXX OAK ST. ALTHOUGH THERE WERE
MULTIPLE EVIDENCE OF MISUSE OF HIS POWER BY
ATTORNEY MICHELLE ROMAN.
POINT III
THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY FAMILY COURT ERRED BY
OVERLOOKING THE FRAUD ATTEMPTED BY ATTORNEY
MICHELLE ROMAN, ATTORNEY KENNETH GONZALEZ AND
MAD TITLE AGENCY AS THEY ATTEMPTED TO [SELL]
PROPERTY XXX OAK ST[.] AND INCLUDE ADDITIONAL
6 A-1242-16T1
CHARGES IN THE CLOSING COST THAT ARE NOT MY
(APPELLANT) RESPONSIBILITY.
POINT IV
THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY FAMILY COURT ERRED BY
OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT STOP[PED]
PAYING THE TAXES FOR OVER A YEAR OF PROPERTY
XXX OAK ST[.] ALTHOUGH IT WAS STATED THAT IT
WAS HIS RESPONSIBILITY IN THE MATRIMONIAL
SETTLE[M]ENT AGREEMENT.
POINT V
RESPONDENT ALSO COMMITTED FRAUD BY HIDING
ASSETS FROM BOTH PROPERTIES AND FAILING TO
PROVIDE A LEGAL RENTAL LEASE OF PROPERTY YYY
OAK ST. AND LIED ABOUT THE REAL REASON I WAS
FORCE[D] TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY[.]
In her pro se brief, plaintiff challenges the court's October
14, 2016 order denying her request to vacate the August 19, 2016
order granting defendant the power to act as her attorney in fact
for the purpose of signing the listing agreement and other
documents necessary to sell the property; and the December 5, 2016
order again granting defendant the power to act as plaintiff's
attorney in fact.4 In each point of her brief, she relies solely
on Rule 4:50-1 to support her claim that the court erred in
4
Plaintiff does not argue the court erred by entering the August
19, 2016 order granting defendant the power to act as plaintiff's
attorney in fact in the first instance. An argument not briefed
on appeal is deemed waived. Jefferson Loan Co. v. Session, 397
N.J. Super. 520, 525 n.4 (App. Div. 2008); Zavodnick v. Leven, 340
N.J. Super. 94, 103 (App. Div. 2001).
7 A-1242-16T1
entering the October 14 and December 5, 2016 orders. Although
plaintiff did not cite Rule 4:50-1 in support of her motions before
the Family Part, plaintiff contends her requests that the court
vacate the August 19, 2016 order constituted motions for relief
from the order under Rule 4:50-1.5
As the court correctly observed on December 5, 2016,
plaintiff's motions and opposition to defendant's requests for
appointment as her attorney in fact were founded on a request that
the court modify the MSA. Indeed, the court denied plaintiff's
motions and appointed defendant as plaintiff's attorney in fact
because the MSA, which was incorporated in the Dual Final Judgment
of Divorce, provided for the sale of the property. Thus,
plaintiff's motions and opposition to defendant's appointment as
her attorney in fact for purposes of selling the property
constituted motions for relief from the divorce judgment under
Rule 4:50-1. See Eaton v. Grau, 368 N.J. Super. 215, 222 (App.
Div. 2004) (finding requests for relief from Family Part orders
related to the equitable distribution of property are considered
under Rule 4:50-1); see also Connor v. Connor, 254 N.J. Super.
5
Plaintiff did not invoke Rule 4:50-1 in connection with any of
the post-judgment motions filed in this matter. In addition,
plaintiff also does not argue the court erred by denying any
putative request during her series of motions for relief from the
Dual Final Judgment of Divorce, which incorporated the MSA by
reference.
8 A-1242-16T1
591, 601 (App. Div. 1992) (finding parties to a divorce proceeding
may move under Rule 4:50-1 to vacate an MSA). We therefore
consider plaintiff's motions and oppositions as such.
Rule 4:50-1 provides:
On motion, with briefs, and upon such terms
as are just, the court may relieve a party or
the party's legal representative from a final
judgment or order for the following reasons:
(a) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (b) newly discovered
evidence which would probably alter the
judgment or order and which by due diligence
could not have been discovered in time to move
for a new trial under R. 4:49; (c) fraud
(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other
misconduct of an adverse party; (d) the
judgment or order is void; (e) the judgment
or order has been satisfied, released or
discharged, or a prior judgment or order upon
which it is based has been reversed or
otherwise vacated, or it is no longer
equitable that the judgment or order should
have prospective application; or (f) any other
reason justifying relief from the operation
of the judgment or order.
"Relief [under Rule 4:50-1] is granted sparingly." F.B. v.
A.L.G., 176 N.J. 201, 207 (2003). A determination on a motion for
relief under Rule 4:50-1 is "left to the sound discretion of the
trial court, guided by principles of equity," ibid., "warrants
substantial deference, and should not be reversed unless it results
in a clear abuse of discretion," U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v.
Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012). An abuse of discretion will
9 A-1242-16T1
be found "when a decision is 'made without a rational explanation,
inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an
impermissible basis.'" Ibid. (quoting Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 123 (2007)).
In our consideration of plaintiff's arguments, we observe
that her recitation of the purported facts are almost universally
untethered to any citation to the record before the trial court.
See R. 2:6-2(a)(5) (requiring that an appellant provide a "concise
statement of the facts" that is "supported by references to the
appendix and transcript"). The absence of the required citations
appears easily explained. The record shows that many of the facts
upon which plaintiff relies in her narrative of the alleged events
were never presented to the motion court and, therefore, cannot
provide a basis for a reversal of the court's orders. See State
v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 201-02 (1997) ("An appellate court, when
reviewing trial errors, generally confines itself to the
record.").
In any event, based on our careful review of plaintiff's
submissions to the trial court, we do not discern any basis to
conclude the court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff's
requests to modify the MSA by barring defendant from selling the
property in accordance with the parties' agreement. MSA's "are
generally favored by the courts as a peaceful means of terminating
10 A-1242-16T1
marital strife and discord so long as they are not against public
policy." Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185, 194 (1999) (quoting
Gordon v. Gordon, 342 Md. 294, 301 (1996)); see also Weishaus v.
Weishaus, 180 N.J. 131, 143 (2004). Although "incorporation of
[an MSA] into a divorce decree does not render it immutable, nor
its terms solely governed by contract law, nevertheless, if found
to be fair and just, it is specifically enforceable in equity."
Eaton, 368 N.J. Super. at 224 (internal citations omitted).
In support of her motions and opposition to defendant's cross-
motions for relief that resulted in the October 14 and December
5, 2016 orders she challenges on appeal, plaintiff offered little
more than assertions that she disagreed with the sale price of the
property, defendant's and the realtor's handling of the sale, and
the allocation of expenses and credits related to the property and
its sale.6 Plaintiff further consistently urged that she thought
it made more sense for her to buy defendant's interest in the
property, subject to contingencies requiring further modifications
6
In plaintiff's certification in opposition to defendant's
December 2016 order to show cause, she asserted defendant's counsel
committed fraud because she submitted a copy of the MSA to the
court that had initials written on it that were different than
those shown on another copy. Plaintiff, however, does not dispute
she testified at the July 14, 2015 divorce proceeding that she
reviewed the MSA with her counsel, agreed to its terms and found
them satisfactory, and entered into the MSA voluntarily. Any
dispute concerning the initials on one copy of the MSA is therefore
of no moment.
11 A-1242-16T1
of the MSA, rather than being required to find another place to
live.
"Rule 4:50-1 'requires proof of exceptional and compelling
circumstances' as it is '[d]esigned to balance the interests of
finality of judgments and judicial efficiency against the interest
of equity and fairness.'" Id. at 222 (citation omitted). A party
seeking relief under Rule 4:50-1 must establish "that enforcement
of the order or judgment would be unjust, oppressive or
inequitable." Ibid.Here, the court considered plaintiff's submissions, and
concluded her contentions reflected only "buyer's remorse" and she
failed to demonstrate an entitlement to the modification of the
MSA upon which her position rested. We find nothing in plaintiff's
submissions supporting her various motions and opposition to
defendant's cross-motions establishing an entitlement to relief
from the MSA under any of Rule 4:50-1's subsections or showing
that enforcement of the parties' agreement to sell the property
was "unjust, oppressive or inequitable." Ibid. The court
therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering either the
12 A-1242-16T1
October 14 or December 5, 2016 orders plaintiff challenges on
appeal.7
Any of plaintiff's arguments we have not addressed directly
are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.8
7
We reject plaintiff's contention the court did not address her
November 21, 2016 motion. During the December 5, 2016 hearing on
defendant's order to show cause, the court stated the motion was
denied.
8
Plaintiff does not state whether the property was, in fact,
sold on December 6, 2016, as anticipated. If the property was
sold, we would dismiss this appeal as moot. See Greenfield v.
N.J. Dep't of Corrs., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006)
(citations omitted) ("An issue is 'moot' when the decision sought
in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect on the
existing controversy.").
13 A-1242-16T1