Sharon Miller Gromek v. Vitold F. Gromek ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3181-22
SHARON MILLER
GROMEK,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
VITOLD F. GROMEK,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Argued September 26, 2024 – Decided October 7, 2024
Before Judges Mawla and Vinci.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County,
Docket No. FM-14-0006-10.
Vitold F. Gromek, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Respondent did not file a brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Vitold F. Gromek appeals from a March 30, 2023 order that
denied his request for an accounting and correction of his probation account, as
well as for credits, damages, legal fees, and expenses. He also challenges a May
12, 2023 order, which denied his motion for reconsideration of the March 2023
order. We affirm.
This matter has a long, and as self-described by defendant, "tortured"
history. As a result, we do not recite the history and facts of the case because
the parties are familiar with them, and we have previously described them. See
Gromek v. Gromek (Gromek I), No. A-1494-15 (App. Div. June 5, 2018) (slip
op. at 1-5); Gromek v. Gromek (Gromek II), No. A-0261-20 (App. Div. June 15,
2023) (slip op. at 1-8).
In October 2022, defendant filed a motion asking the trial court to order
an accounting and correction of an audit rendered by probation on March 17,
2022. He requested a "full accounting" consistent with a January 11, 2022 order,
retroactive to October 1, 1998, that probation calculate the total credits due to
him from October 1, 1998 to present, and the court order probation to format the
corrected accounting in a weekly format. The motion also requested that
probation provide a corrected statement of the alimony and child support he had
paid for 2021.
Defendant also asked the court to provide its order to the Social Security
Administration, because defendant's social security was being garnished by
A-3181-22
2
probation to satisfy his support obligations. Defendant surmised there would be
a resultant credit, which he requested be applied to his alimony obligation until
it was exhausted. The motion sought an award of damages, legal fees (despite
the fact defendant was self-represented), and costs.
On March 30, 2023, the motion judge issued a written opinion carefully
setting forth a timeline of defendant's numerous motions, which ostensibly
sought the same relief he was seeking in the October 2022 motion. She noted
the court had entered orders on June 28 and July 20, 2012, directing probation
to conduct an audit of defendant's account from October 1, 1998, to the present
date. A December 10, 2014 order followed, establishing defendant's alimony
obligation and his child support arrears payment.
The judge noted that on October 25, 2021, the court entered an order that
defendant's child support arrears were paid in full; directed probation to correct
its record regarding alimony and child support arrears; provide both parties with
a full accounting of the child support and alimony arrears, and records
previously paid; and set the credit amount on defendant's account. The October
2021 order required defendant's ongoing alimony payments to continue through
probation.
A-3181-22
3
Defendant moved to enforce the October 2021 order. On January 11,
2022, the court entered an order finding probation had provided the arrears
accounting on December 13, 2021. However, the accounting was only
retroactive to October 1, 2000, whereas the court had previously required it
retroactive to October 1, 1998.
The deputy attorney general (DAG) representing probation advised the
court that probation would have to obtain records prior to October 2000 from
microfiche. Ultimately, probation obtained the records and provided defendant
with an accounting from October 1, 1998, to February 11, 2022. The court found
probation had provided a full accounting to defendant, noting the records
commenced with a support payment made on February 5, 1999. Moreover, the
court found the format sufficient to enable defendant's review. The court
terminated the garnishment of defendant's social security benefits effective
February 7, 2022.
On February 17, 2022, defendant filed a motion requesting a review of the
full accounting provided by probation. The court denied the motion on April 4,
2022, and subsequently denied a motion for reconsideration. Defendant filed
another motion requesting discovery and asking the court to review any errors
A-3181-22
4
in the full accounting of his probation account pursuant to the January 11, 2022
order. The court denied the motion on April 29, 2022.
The motion judge then turned to the relief defendant sought in his October
2022 filing. She noted he requested the court correct his probation account
record and argued the court erred when it found probation had provided a full
accounting. He claimed the accounting contained errors and was incomplete
because it lacked a comparison between the total amounts paid and due.
The motion judge rejected these arguments and concluded probation had
provided a full accounting by obtaining the records prior to October 1, 2000.
"Probation submitted all available accounting of . . . [d]efendant's probation
account and indicated to the court that [p]robation had to confer with . . .
[d]efendant regarding payments before October 1, 2020." The judge found
probation had complied with its obligations and the format of its accounting was
"sufficient for . . . [d]efendant to review."
Defendant moved for reconsideration. He argued the court erred because
"nearly all the errors cited in [the motion he] filed [in October 2022] were not
litigated previously." The October 2022 motion raised "additional [p]robation
account and 'full accounting' errors for the first time beyond those filed
previously in [his m]otion for [e]nforcement of the [o]rder of [January 11, 2022]
A-3181-22
5
and [his m]otion for [r]econsideration of the [o]rder of [April 4, 2022]."
Defendant claimed the court overlooked the detailed evidence of the errors in
his probation account and instead accepted the DAG's representations on behalf
of probation. He also asserted the court made no effort "to investigate the
disputed facts by way of further inquiry or request for detail, nor was cross-
examination by way of a hearing permitted."
Defendant's certification then argued probation "fabricated false
charges[,]" which appeared on his account. He presented a certification from a
forensic accountant that he previously filed with the court in 2020 and 2022,
which he claimed the court "ignored" when it entered its November 4, 2020 and
April 4, 2022 orders. Defendant claimed our prior decisions were erroneous
because we should not have deferred to the trial court's fact findings regarding
the accountings provided by probation.
On May 12, 2023, the motion judge denied the motion for reconsideration.
She noted defendant had "filed various motions requesting the same relief."
However, "[d]efendant . . . failed to demonstrate what evidence the court failed
to consider [and] . . . failed to provide the court with sufficient basis for [his]
request." Citing our holding in Spinks v. Twp. of Clinton, 402 N.J. Super. 454,
463 (App. Div. 2008), the judge aptly noted as follows: "It is the party's burden,
A-3181-22
6
not the court's burden, to provide the specific information contained in their
proofs to support their argument."
Defendant raises the following points on appeal:
POINT I: The [c]ourt erred and abused its judicial
discretion in failing to enforce the order of 1) [July 20,
2012,] to hold a hearing, on the record, and 2) the
[o]rder of [January 11, 2022,] to provide [d]efendant a
complete "full accounting" and to provide "a credit for
any overpayments or improper garnishments" from the
period commencing from October 1, 1998[,] to the
present date. . . .
POINT II: The [c]ourt erred and abused its judicial
discretion not only in overlooking or by mistake or by
misapplication of law failing to comprehensively
review [p]robation's alleged "accounting" and the
missing and overlooked credits duly issued by court
[o]rders, but given the evidence of [p]robation's
withdrawal of decades of erroneous account postings
and audits, the [c]ourt erred and abused its judicial
discretion and its obligation to ensure the accurate
enforcement of its [o]rders in a manner so as to
manifestly offend the interests of justice and equity. . . .
POINT III: The [c]ourt erred and abused its judicial
discretion by 1) failing to consider [d]efendant's prima
facie evidence that the [p]robation account contained
voluminous errors, and 2) by failing to consider valid
court [o]rders demonstrating [p]robation's account
errors, 3) by failing to schedule a hearing to resolve
disputed facts of the case and instead continuing to rely
upon [p]robation's erroneous "accounting" and audits,
and 4) by denying [d]efendant the resulting credits and
income rightfully due him, and in this manner the
[c]ourt denied [d]efendant due process by failing to
A-3181-22
7
provide [d]efendant with opportunity to present proofs
to support his claim of [p]robation account error - in a
hearing on the record as ordered by [another judge] and
as rightfully due [d]efendant as a matter of justice and
equity. . . .
POINT IV: The [c]ourt erred and abused its judicial
discretion in misapplying "law of the case" doctrine in
a manner contrary to the [a]ppellate court's [r]emand
orders of [January 17, 2022] and [October 27, 2005,]
and the trial [c]ourt's [o]rders of [December 10, 2014]
and [January 10, 2020,] in a manner beyond the
authority and intent of the trial court and in a manner
contrary to the submitted evidence. . . .
POINT V: The [c]ourt erred and abused its judicial
discretion in failing to provide [d]efendant with due
process and protection against unreasonable seizure of
[d]efendant's private property as provided under the NJ
Constitution, Article 1, in a manner contrary to the law
and the interests of justice and equity. . . .
POINT VI: The [c]ourt erred and abused its judicial
discretion by overlooking, or by mistake, failing to
consider [d]efendant's probative, substantive evidence
of probation account error not previously [litigated] and
in[ ]turn relying upon the unsupported, non-
substantive, non-responsive arguments of [p]robation
in a manner so as to manifestly offend the interests of
justice and equity. . . .
Point VII: Given the extent of the Superior Court's and
[p]robation's failure to oversee and maintain an
accurate [p]robation account record for the past
[twenty-five] years, [d]efendant requests the
[a]ppellate [c]ourt assume jurisdiction of this case so
that an accurate account record can be finally
A-3181-22
8
established and . . . full of credits rightfully due
[d]efendant be granted. . . .
[Emphasis omitted.]
Our scope of review of Family Part orders 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).
We apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing an order
denying reconsideration. Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Newark, 349 N.J.
Super. 455, 462 (App. Div. 2002). This standard is inherently deferential.
Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc v. ABC Caging Fulfillment, 440 N.J. Super. 378, 382
(App. Div. 2015). This is because motions for reconsideration are granted "only
under very narrow circumstances[.]" Fusco, 349 N.J. Super. at 462.
Reconsideration "is not appropriate merely because a litigant is
dissatisfied with a decision of the court or wishes to reargue a motion . . . ."
Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 288 (App. Div. 2010). Rather,
reconsideration lies where "1) the [c]ourt has expressed its decision based upon
a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either
did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent
evidence." Ibid. (quoting D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div.
A-3181-22
9
1990)). Our review of questions of law is always de novo. Manalapan Realty,
L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
Res judicata bars re-litigation of claims or issues already litigated.
Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J. 498, 505 (1991). "In essence, the doctrine . . .
provides that a cause of action between parties that has been finally determined
on the merits by a [court] having jurisdiction cannot be re[-]litigated by those
parties or their privies in a new proceeding." Ibid. (citing Roberts v. Goldner,
79 N.J. 82, 85 (1979)). "For a judicial decision to be accorded res judicata effect,
it must be a valid and final adjudication on the merits of the claim." Id. at 506
(citation omitted). The law of the case doctrine "is a non-binding rule intended
to 'prevent re[-]litigation of a previously resolved issue.'" Lombardi v. Masso,
207 N.J. 517, 538 (2011) (quoting In re Est. of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311
(2008)).
Having reviewed the record pursuant to these principles, we are satisfied
the motion judge did not abuse her discretion when she denied defendant's
motions. The issues defendant had with probation's accounting have already
been addressed by the trial court. In our last opinion, we affirmed the trial
court's denial of a plenary hearing on the issue of alleged discrepancies in
defendant's probation account, and recounted the following:
A-3181-22
10
Defendant alleges there are discrepancies in his
probation account. He points to the . . . forensic
accounting report, which claims defendant overpaid
$56,191.09 as of July 31, 2020. Although the court
acknowledged this constituted a dispute of fact . . . the
court concluded a plenary hearing was unnecessary
because the issue had been "fully explored" and
"correctly [ad]judged." Indeed, the October 2015 order
gave defendant ninety days to address any problems
with probation. According to the court, defendant
"took no action" at that time. When defendant moved
for a plenary hearing in January 2020, the court denied
the request for the same reason, finding defendant was
"re-litigating issues from prior filed motions that ha[d]
been previously addressed."
The court thus treated the request for a plenary
hearing at issue in the November 2020 order as a
motion for reconsideration of the January 2020 order
and found it untimely under Rule 4:49-2. It also
concluded defendant failed to demonstrate any errors
the court may have made or any evidence the court
failed to consider.
. . . Because the court found the issue had already
been adjudicated and defendant otherwise failed to
show any errors or material the court failed to consider,
a hearing would have "adduce[d] no further facts or
information." Further, the record shows that after
defendant submitted [the forensic] report to the court in
July 2020, probation did conduct another audit, dated
September 18, 2020, and found no errors. The audit
indicated defendant owed $19,544.06 in arrears as of
August 30, 2020. We discern neither an abuse of
discretion nor any legal errors requiring reversal.
[Gromek II, (slip op. at 15-16) (internal citation
omitted).]
A-3181-22
11
Defendant's disagreement with the outcome of the latest round of motions
is just that, a disagreement. His dissatisfaction with the outcome does not
convince us the motion judge committed reversible error. While his claims may
not have been resolved to his liking, the repeated raising of those claims by way
of successive applications to the trial court does not persuade us there was either
an abuse of discretion or mistake of law in the March 2023 order. Nor are we
convinced that facts or law were overlooked when the motion for
reconsideration was denied in May 2023.
We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the motion judge's
March 30 and May 12, 2023 orders. To the extent we have not addressed an
argument raised on this appeal, it is because it lacks sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-3181-22
12