TAMI CORRELLO VS. DOUGLAS CORRELLO (FM-11-0393-03, MERCER 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5570-16T3
TAMI CORRELLO,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DOUGLAS CORRELLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Argued November 5, 2018 – Decided November 20, 2018
Before Judges Haas and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Mercer County,
Docket No. FM-11-0393-03.
Douglas G. Corrello, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
This post-judgment matrimonial matter returns to us after remand
proceedings directed by our previous opinion. See Corrello v. Corrello, No. A-
0292-12 (App. Div. Dec. 29, 2016). As we directed, the trial judge recalculated
defendant's alimony and child support obligations, determined the appropriate
credits due plaintiff as a result of those adjustments, and granted plaintiff's
motion for counsel fees and costs. The judge explained the basis for his rulings
in a comprehensive forty-eight-page oral opinion containing his detailed
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Defendant appeals from the July 14, 2017 and August 8, 2017 orders
memorializing the judge's decision, and raises the following contentions:
I. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY
INCLUDED DEFENDANT'S PREVIOUSLY
EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED PENSION, AND
DISABILITY PORTION OF PENSION, WHEN
EVALUATING THE CURRENT ALIMONY
AWARD.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID
NOT CONSIDER THE PARTIES['] CURRENT
FINANCIAL SITUATION AS REQUIRED BY
N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) AND (b).
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID
NOT REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO DISCLOSE
THE TERMS AND AMOUNT OF HER
INHERITANCE. THE TRIAL COURT WAS
NOT ABLE TO PERFORM A PROPER
ALIMONY ANALYSIS DUE TO PLAINTIFF'S
WITHHOLDING OF SIGNIFICANT
INHERITANCE, ASSETS AND TRUST
FUNDS AVAILABLE TO HER.
A-5570-16T3
2
IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPUTING
"INTEREST INCOME" TO DEFENDANT.
V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
RETROACTIVELY RECALCULATING
CHILD SUPPORT FOR RELIEF NOT
PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED OR NOTICED.
VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS AWARD
OF ATTORNEY FEES AND SHOULD BE
REVERSED.
A. THE TRIAL COURT ORDER FOR
APPENDIX FEE'S [SIC] SHOULD BE
REVERSED.
B. THE TRIAL COURT ORDER FOR
PLAINTIFF'S FEES FOR THE 2012
CROSS[-]MOTION SHOULD BE
REVERSED.
C. THE TRIAL COURT DECISION FOR
THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES
FOR THE PLENARY HEARING, THE
APPEAL, AND THE REMAND, ARE
CONTRARY TO [N.J.S.A.] 2A:34-23,
NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD,
AND SHOULD BE REVERSED.
VII. THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO GIVE
WEIGHT TO PLAINTIFF'S SUBMISSION
WHICH INCLUDED INFORMATION IN
REGARD TO PLAINTIFF'S SUBSEQUENT
MARRIAGE. THIS SHOULD TERMINATE
ALIMONY IN THIS CASE (ISSUE NOT
RAISED BELOW).
A-5570-16T3
3
VIII. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER
SHOULD BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT
JUDGE.
Based on our review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude
that defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant extended
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for
the reasons set forth in the trial judge's thorough decision. We add the following
brief comments.
The scope of our review of the Family Part's order is limited. We owe
substantial deference to the Family Part's findings of fact because of that court's
special expertise in family matters. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12
(1998). Thus, "[a] reviewing court should uphold the factual findings
undergirding the trial court's decision if they are supported by adequate,
substantial and credible evidence on the record." MacKinnon v. MacKinnon,
191 N.J. 240, 253-54 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth
& Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007)).
While we owe no special deference to the judge's legal conclusions,
Manalapan Realty v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995), we
"'should not disturb the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge
unless . . . convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent
A-5570-16T3
4
with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the
interests of justice' or when we determine the court has palpably abused its
discretion." Parish v. Parish, 412 N.J. Super. 39, 47 (App. Div. 2010) (alteration
in original) (quoting Cesare, 154 N.J. at 412). We will only reverse the judge's
decision when it is necessary to "'ensure that there is not a denial of justice'
because the family court's 'conclusions are [] "clearly mistaken" or "wide of the
mark."'" Id. at 48 (alteration in original) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Family
Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008)).
Applying these principles, defendant's arguments concerning the July 14,
2017 and August 8, 2017 orders reveal nothing "so wide of the mark" that we
could reasonably conclude that a clear mistake was made by the judge. The
record amply supports the judge's factual findings and, in light of those findings,
his legal conclusions are unassailable.
Affirmed.
A-5570-16T3
5