VINCENZO TERSIGNI VS. MICHELE LAPINE-TERSIGNI (FM-07-1330-10, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3258-16T2
VINCENZO TERSIGNI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHELE LAPINE-TERSIGNI,
Defendant-Respondent.
________________________________
Submitted November 5, 2018 – Decided November 21, 2018
Before Judges Messano and Fasciale.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket
No. FM-07-1330-10.
Vincenzo Tersigni, appellant pro se.
Tabitha Y. Clark, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Vincenzo Tersigni
appeals from a November 30, 2016 order, and a March 3, 2017 order denying
reconsideration. The orders generally address the parties' ongoing disputes as
to custody/parenting time, child-care expenses, alimony, and child-support
obligations. Judge Nancy Sivilli, who was thoroughly familiar with the ongoing
litigation between the parties since their divorce – entered the orders and
rendered a written statement of reasons. We affirm.
The parties married each other in 2003, had one child in 2007, and got
divorced in 2011. In 2014, the judge granted defendant's request to relocate with
the child to Pennsylvania. Plaintiff had appealed from an order permitting the
relocation. We deferred to the judge's findings, concluded she applied the
correct law, and affirmed the relocation. Tersigni v. Lapine-Tersigni, No. A-
0302-14 (App. Div. Nov. 25, 2015). Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to
relinquish jurisdiction over custody to Pennsylvania. Plaintiff then cross-moved
to modify custody and support obligations. These motions led to the issuance
of the orders under review.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the judge abused her discretion by
transferring jurisdiction over custody/parenting time to Pennsylvania; ordering
him to pay child-care costs; depriving him of discovery (which he says would
have extinguished his alimony obligation); not following the Property
A-3258-16T2
2
Settlement Agreement (PSA); and requiring only him to produce a Case
Information Statement (CIS).
A familiar standard of review governs our review. 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, 413 (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)). And, 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
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).]
A-3258-16T2
3
In ordering relinquishment of jurisdiction over custody and parenting time
to Pennsylvania, the judge correctly applied the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), N.J.S.A. 2A:34-28 to -95. In
pertinent part, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-66 provides:
a. Except as otherwise provided in section 16 . . . of this
act, or section 1 of P.L.2013, c.7 (C.9:2-12.1)
concerning a service member's absence due to a
deployment or service-related treatment as set forth in
that section, a court of this State that has made a child
custody determination consistent with section 13 or 15
. . . of this act has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction
over the determination until:
(1) a court of this State determines that neither the
child, the child and one parent, nor the child and a
person acting as a parent have a significant connection
with this State and that substantial evidence is no longer
available in this State concerning the child's care,
protection, training, and personal relationships; . . . .
The judge found that New Jersey had exclusive jurisdiction at the time of the
divorce because the parties and the child lived in this State. But then she
analyzed the facts by applying the UCCJEA.
Since the time of the divorce, circumstances have
changed because [d]efendant and the child moved out
of New Jersey in August 2014[,] and now live in
Pennsylvania. The child has now been a resident of
Pennsylvania for the last [two and one-half] years
and[,] as such, Pennsylvania is the "home state" of the
child. Moreover, evidence as to the child's care,
education, [and] well-being is in Pennsylvania since the
A-3258-16T2
4
child attends school in Pennsylvania and [the] child's
doctors . . . are in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is,
therefore, the appropriate venue for custody and
parenting time issues. For all of those reasons, the court
is declining jurisdiction on custody and parenting time
issues in favor of the child's home state, Pennsylvania.
Adequate, substantial and credible evidence on the record support the judge's
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
As to alimony, the orders under review are interlocutory because the judge
required additional information before she rendered a final order on the subject.
Paragraph three of the March 3, 2017 order states:
Paragraph [twelve] of the November 30, 2016 [o]rder
is hereby modified to provide that [d]efendant shall
provide documented proof of her income up to the
termination date of alimony – September 30, 2013.
Defendant shall provide same to the court and
[p]laintiff on or before March 17, 2017. Since alimony
ended in 2013[,] the parties do not have to produce their
tax returns for 2014 and 2015 for the purposes of
addressing the issue of alimony.
Plaintiff did not file a motion for leave to appeal from this part of the order. We
therefore decline to address the alimony issue.
Finally, on the subject of plaintiff's child-support obligations, in January
2016, the judge ordered plaintiff to produce his financial records for his
business, as well as an updated CIS, but he failed to do so. The judge concluded
that plaintiff had not demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances since
A-3258-16T2
5
2012. As the judge indicated in paragraph six of the March 3, 2017 order,
"[c]opies of a 2016 and 2017 [CIS] with no financial documents attached or
provided is not sufficient proof."
We conclude that plaintiff's remaining arguments – to the extent that we
have not addressed them – lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(e). We briefly add, as to plaintiff's child-care
obligations, that the judge required him to pay his seventy-percent share under
the terms of the Judgment of Divorce.
Affirmed.
A-3258-16T2
6