SANDRA VILLEGAS VS. JAMES VILLEGAS (FM-16-574-10, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1777-15T1
SANDRA VILLEGAS,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JAMES VILLEGAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
Submitted May 8, 2017 – Decided July 10, 2017
Before Judges Nugent and Currier.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,
Passaic County, Docket No. FM-16-574-10.
LaRocca Hornik Rosen Greenberg & Patti, LLC,
attorneys for appellant (Frank J. LaRocca,
Sarah Martynowski, and Stacey L. Miller, on
the briefs).
Geraldine E. O'Kane, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
Defendant James Villegas appeals from the October 15, 2015
order, reinstating the equitable distribution (ED) award from the
Judgment of Divorce (JOD) after remand from this court. Because
we are satisfied that the family part judge adequately clarified
his reasoning for the ED, as directed in the remand, we affirm.
After nineteen years of marriage, plaintiff Sandra Villegas
filed a complaint for divorce. Following a trial, a JOD was
entered in June 2011; an accompanying memorandum of decision was
issued in November 2012. Defendant appealed from the court's
decision, specifically challenging the determinations of alimony
and child support, and the allocation of college costs. In our
review, we found no reason to disturb the judge's calculations of
income for alimony, child support, and college cost allocations,
and affirmed those awards. Villegas v. Villegas, No. A-2516-11
(App. Div. August 11, 2014).
In its consideration, however, the panel queried whether the
ED decision in which both parties kept their respective accounts
was correct. It appeared that plaintiff was favored by $81,500
($14,000 of plaintiff's current account monies and $67,500 of
plaintiff's funds in her own investment accounts). As a result,
we remanded the matter "for clarification . . . as to whether [the
judge] intended to allow plaintiff to retain the [excess monies],
and to articulate his reasons for the allocation, or whether the
allocation was an oversight and if so what distribution would be
appropriate." Id. (slip op. at 23-24)
2 A-1777-15T1
In response, the family part judge issued an order and
supplemental memorandum of decision amending the JOD. In the
memorandum, the judge stated that he intended the difference
between the $126,000 alimony award and $140,000 defendant was
entitled to under ED - $14,000 - to be an offset as he had granted
plaintiff less years in alimony than requested, and he found the
amount she had requested likely not enough to meet her overall
budget. Therefore, the $14,000 difference was intentional.
The judge further determined that he had "overlooked" the
credit to which defendant was entitled with regard to plaintiff's
assets that she had used to buy out defendant's interest in the
marital home ($40,000) and the purchase of the building housing
her business ($95,000) totaling $135,000. Using the 50/50 ED
split set forth in the JOD, the judge concluded that defendant was
entitled to $67,500.
Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the court order,
advising that both the Appellate Division and the trial judge were
mistaken in their respective calculations of the funds comprising
the $135,000. She attributed the error to the fact that she had
not changed the figure listed on her "Assets" section of her Case
Information Statement (CIS) from the time of its filing through
the trial. The figure of $265,000 noted under "Assets" in the CIS
at the time of the filing of the complaint had diminished to
3 A-1777-15T1
$77,000 at the time of trial. Plaintiff had withdrawn monies for
the purchase of defendant's interest in the marital estate, as
well as the purchase of her business and building, and its
concomitant costs.
In an oral ruling on March 27, 2015, the judge agreed that
he, in fact, had been mistaken in his December 2014 order, and
that after a more thorough review of the papers and trial
testimony, it was "very very clear" that the $265,000 had been
"double counted" by himself and the Appellate Division. He
concurred that there was only $77,000 that remained available for
distribution in plaintiff's personal accounts at the time of trial.
The judge also noted that defendant had not raised the issue of
an unbalanced ED in the appeal nor contested in any manner the
distribution of the parties' accounts.
In a supplemental memorandum and order of October 15, 2015,
the judge memorialized his oral decision. He reiterated that the
award of ED in the JOD included the $265,000 listed in the CIS,
and that plaintiff's oversight in not changing the figure at trial
had caused some confusion to both this court and himself upon
remand.
In this appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court failed
to comply with this court's order to articulate its reasons for
the allocation of the parties' assets, and its calculations remain
4 A-1777-15T1
ambiguous.1 In positing this argument, defendant does not provide
any specific information or calculations to support his
entitlement to an additional $67,000 in ED. As noted, defendant
did not argue in the first appeal that the allocation of ED was
incorrect. He does not dispute plaintiff's accounting of the
monies in her personal accounts.
We are satisfied that the trial judge adequately accounted
for the allocation of the ED in his March 2014 oral decision and
October 15 memorandum. Contrary to defendant's assertion, we did
not order defendant be awarded $67,000; we requested clarification
and a reasoning for the allocation. That was accomplished on
remand.
Affirmed.
1
Defendant does not contest the trial court's determination that
$14,000 was an offset of the award of alimony to plaintiff against
the differential in ED.
5 A-1777-15T1