C.C v. VS. J v. (FM-12-1453-14, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3253-16T4
C.C.V.,1
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
J.V.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Argued November 28, 2018 – Decided December 12, 2018
Before Judges Nugent, Reisner and Mawla.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County,
Docket No. FM-12-1453-14.
J.V., appellant, argued the cause pro se (Jeffrey Zajac,
on the briefs).
Katherine F. Richardson argued the cause for
respondent (Richardson & Richardson, attorneys;
Katherine F. Richardson, of counsel and on the brief).
1
We use initials in order to protect the privacy of the parties.
PER CURIAM
Defendant, J.V., appeals from a Dual Judgment of Divorce that terminated
the parties' nineteen-year marriage following an eighteen-day trial. On appeal,
defendant argues:
POINT I:
THE CHANCERY DIVISION ERRED BY
ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE THE SO-CALLED
"DAILY COLLECTION SHEETS," REQUIRING A
REMAND ON THE ISSUE OF ALIMONY AND THE
DEFENDANT’S INCOME FOR THE YEARS 2011
THROUGH 2013.
POINT II:
EVEN IF ONE ACCEPTS THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
THE SO-CALLED COLLECTION SHEETS, THE
CHANCERY DIVISION NEVERTHELESS ERRED
IN ITS CALCULATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S
INCOME FOR THE YEARS 2011 THROUGH 2013.
A. Barson's Determination of the
Defendant's Income and Unreported Cash
Lacked Credibility.
B. The Chancery Division's
Determination of the Defendant's Income
and Unreported Cash Is Untenable and
Without Support.
POINT III:
THE DEFENDANT'S MONTHLY ALIMONY
OBLIGATION OF $5,833 PER MONTH IS
EXCESSIVE, AND REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT
REDUCTION.
A-3253-16T4
2
POINT IV:
THE CHANCERY DIVISION ERRED BY
COMPELLING THE DEFENDANT TO PAY
ALIMONY UNTIL THE AGE OF 72.
POINT V:
THE CHANCERY DIVISION ERRED BY
INCLUDING THE DEFENDANT'S PRE-MARITAL
VOYA RETIREMENT ACCOUNT AS AN ASSET
SUBJECT TO EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION.
POINT VI:
THE CHANCERY DIVISION ERRED IN
AWARDING $75,000 IN COUNSEL FEES TO THE
PLAINTIFF.
We affirm, substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge John A.
Jorgensen, II in his March 2, 2017 oral opinion. Having considered defendant's
arguments in light of the trial record and controlling legal principles, we find no
abuse of discretion in the judge's evidentiary decisions. Estate of Hanges v.
Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369, 383-84 (2010); Green v. N.J. Mfrs.
Ins. Co., 160 N.J. 480, 492 (1999). Judge Jorgensen's credibility and factual
determinations are supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence.
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998). Defendant's arguments to the
contrary are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
A-3253-16T4
3
Affirmed.
A-3253-16T4
4