SASIREKHA MAGUDAPATHI VS. RANGARAJAN CALYANAKOTI (FM-18-0639-15, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0214-18T2
SASIREKHA MAGUDAPATHI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RANGARAJAN CALYANAKOTI,
Defendant-Respondent.
Submitted September 17, 2019 – Decided October 10, 2019
Before Judges Yannotti and Currier.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County,
Docket No. FM-18-0639-15.
Peter A. Ouda, attorney for appellant.
Rangarajan Calyanakoti, respondent pro se.
PER CURIAM
In this matrimonial action, plaintiff Sasirekha Magudapathi appeals two
orders entered on August 10, 2018. The first order denied her request for the
disclosure and distribution of defendant Rangarajan Calyanakoti's State Bank of
India (SBI) account. Plaintiff challenges the portions of the second order that
denied her application to correct a February 2, 2018 order regarding the parties'
property in Bangalore, India, denied her request for counsel fees, and required
the parties to share equally in the costs of a guardian ad litem and custodial
expert. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for entry of an order in
conformance with this opinion.
Following the execution of a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) and
entry of a Dual Final Judgment of Divorce (FJOD) in October 2015, the parties
have engaged in a robust post-judgment motion practice. In a prior appeal,
plaintiff contended defendant had not complied with the equitable distribution
of his bank accounts as required under the MSA. We agreed and remanded "for
the entry of an order requiring defendant to produce to plaintiff the pertinent
bank statements demonstrating the alleged distribution to her of his accounts."
Magudapathi v. Calyanakoti, No. A-2106-16 (App. Div. Mar. 13, 2018) (slip op.
at 3-4).
On remand, the Family Part judge entered a case management order
requiring the parties to produce "all bank, stock and bond account statement[s]
for all accounts in their name or in the name of another on their behalf located
A-0214-18T2
2
in the United States, India or anywhere else." The period of those statements
included "September 2014 through March 2015."
In response, plaintiff requested information regarding "the disclosure and
distribution of a State Bank of India account" held by defendant. This account
was in addition to the two accounts defendant had previously listed in his Case
Information Statement (CIS).1 In his reply certification, defendant stated his
"SBI Account" contained $134 "around the date of filing of [d]ivorce" in January
2015.2 He also advised the SBI statement had been provided to plaintiff and her
counsel.
On August 10, 2018, a different Family Part judge (the motion judge)
considered plaintiff's motion and denied her request for distribution of the SBI
account. In a written statement of reasons, the motion judge found the request
was "beyond the scope of the Appellate Division remand decision" and plaintiff
failed to show proof of the account's existence as she "provide[d] no information
about it except a speculative assertion that the account might have existed . . . ."
1
The prior appeal only centered on the two accounts listed in defendant's CIS.
2
A statement from this account is included in defendant's Appendix. The
account's value is indicated in rupees.
A-0214-18T2
3
Further, the motion judge noted there was "no motion pending before the court
as to [the SBI] account. . . ."
Following our remand, the first Family Part judge entered an order
requiring the parties to provide information about all bank accounts held in their
names in the United States, India or elsewhere. Defendant provided the name
and account balance of his SBI account and a statement for the relevant period.
This complied with both this court's remand decision and the Family Part's
subsequent order. It was error, therefore, for the motion judge not to require the
equitable distribution of the SBI account. Therefore, on remand the judge shall
enter an order reflecting the distribution.
We turn to plaintiff's contentions regarding the apartment in Bangalore,
India. The equitable distribution of this, and several other Indian properties, has
been the subject of multiple post-judgment motions.
The MSA required the parties to sell the apartment and equally divide the
proceeds from the sale. An August 2016 order appointed a realtor for the
property. The apartment was one of the subjects raised in cross-motions
considered by the first Family Part judge in January 2018. Defendant contended
that plaintiff had not yet listed the apartment for sale. He requested to purchase
the apartment for $300,000. Plaintiff objected to defendant purchasing the
A-0214-18T2
4
property and stated that the presence of tenants in the apartment was impeding
its sale. She requested the judge order the removal of the tenants.
During the oral argument, the Family Part judge stated she intended to
revise the tentative order to include language that
the parties will cooperate with the removal of the
tenants, as I've already put in the tentative, and then it
will be within [thirty] days of the removal of the tenant,
the [p]laintiff will have the right to find a third-party
buyer who is willing to pay $330,000 or more for the
Bangalore property.
And if she cannot, the [d]efendant will be able to buy
the Bangalore property for $300,000.
However, as the argument progressed, and the judge heard from the parties
themselves as to the real estate sale and rental processes in India, she advised
she could not make a determination at that time. The judge said she would look
at the prior orders regarding the disposition of the apartment, consider all of the
information presented to her, and render a decision within two weeks.
The subsequent February 2, 2018 order stated in pertinent part: "If no offer
higher than ten percent (10%) of the $300,000.00 stated value of the property is
proffered for the purchase of the Bangalore property within thirty (30) days of
the execution of the Power of Attorney, [d]efendant shall be entitled to purchase
A-0214-18T2
5
this property at $300,000.00." There was no reference to the tenancy. Plaintiff
did not move for reconsideration of or appeal from the February 2, 2018 order.
In July 2018, defendant moved to "exercise his rights to purchase the
Bangalore property . . . for $300,000.00 pursuant to the February 2, 2018,
order. . . ." In a cross-motion, plaintiff opposed defendant's application and
moved to correct the February 2, 2018 order to state: "If no offer above the 10%
of the $300,000.00 stated value is proffered for the purchase of the Bangalore
property within thirty (30) days of the date the tenant vacates the property,
[d]efendant shall be entitled to purchase this property at $300,000.00. . . ."
In an August 10, 2018 order, the motion judge denied plaintiff's
application, holding that he would "direct enforcement of [the first judge's] order
as written." The judge granted defendant's "request to buy plaintiff out of her
interest in the Bangalore property . . . for $300,000.00. . . ."
The scope of review of Family Part orders is limited. Cesare v. Cesare,
154 N.J. 394, 411 (1998). We owe deference to the Family Part's findings of
fact because of that court's special expertise in family matters. Id. at 413. 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
A-0214-18T2
6
(2007) (alteration in original) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v.
M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007)).
While no special deference is owed to the judge's legal conclusions,
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995),
we do "'not disturb the factual findings . . . of the trial judge unless . . . convinced
that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the comp etent,
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) (quoting Cesare, 154 N.J. at
412).
Plaintiff argues defendant received a "windfall" because the motion judge
failed to correct the error in the February 2 order, which did not require the
tenant to vacate the Bangalore property before plaintiff could sell it. Defendant
contends plaintiff is time barred from raising the issue, because the time for
either reconsideration or an appeal of the order has expired.
We discern no merit to plaintiff's argument. Although during oral
argument, the first judge proposed a change to the language to her tentative
order, the parties and their counsel continued to argue the issue. At the
conclusion of the argument, the judge advised she intended to look further into
A-0214-18T2
7
the case, including at prior orders, and consider the information presented during
argument prior to issuing an order. There was no "clear clerical error"
warranting relief as asserted by plaintiff.
The August 10, 2018 orders denied plaintiff's application for counsel fees
and her request to modify the apportionment of the guardian ad litem and expert
fees. We discern no abuse of discretion in these rulings. After addressing the
governing Rule 5:3-5(c) factors, the motion judge stated: "[N]o attorney fee
award is warranted under the circumstances. This remains a high conflict case
with disputes at every turn. The court does not find bad faith. . . . Each party
has the ability to pay their own counsel fees and is responsible to do so." This
determination is equally applicable to the issue of the allocation of the expert
fees.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court solely
for the entry of an order dividing the SBI account in accordance with this
opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-0214-18T2
8