LAURIE JOHNSON VS. THOMAS JOHNSON (FM-14-0509-11, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3895-19
LAURIE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
THOMAS JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Argued October 20, 2021 – Decided November 4, 2021
Before Judges Fuentes, Gooden Brown, and Gummer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County,
Docket No. FM-14-0509-11.
Bonnie C. Frost argued the cause for appellant
(Einhorn, Barbarito, Frost & Botwinick, attorneys;
Matheu D. Nunn, Jhanice V. Domingo and Jessie M.
Mills, on the briefs).
Thomas J. DeCataldo argued the cause for respondent
(Skoloff Wolfe P.C., attorneys; Thomas J. DeCataldo,
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals an order denying his motion for termination of his
alimony obligation and the parties' fee applications and granting plaintiff's
cross-motion to find defendant in violation of litigant's rights. We affirm the
order substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Frank J. DeAngelis's
comprehensive, written decision.
As Judge DeAngelis stated, "[d]efendant's application rests largely on a
series of negative inferences he asks the [c]ourt to draw" from the facts set forth
in defendant's motion. Accepting defendant's asserted facts, we agree with
Judge DeAngelis that defendant did not present sufficient evidence from which
a trier of fact could find cohabitation.
Judge DeAngelis's decision and the parties' appellate briefs were written
before we issued our decision in Temple v. Temple, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App.
Div. 2021). Defense counsel's reliance on Temple at oral argument was
misplaced given the clear factual differences between Temple and this case.
See, e.g., id. at ___ (slip op. at 8-14) (identification of defendant by her
paramour's last name in a church publication, her paramour's frequent reference
to defendant as his "wife," and his and defendant's post-motion scrubbing of
their social-media accounts).
Affirmed.
A-3895-19
2