JOANNA HENDRICKS VS. JAY HENDRICKS (FM-05-0250-12, CAPE MAY 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2846-16T2
JOANNA HENDRICKS,
Plaintiff-Respondent/
Cross-Appellant,
v.
JAY HENDRICKS,
Defendant-Appellant/
Cross-Respondent.
_____________________________
Submitted January 22, 2019 – Decided January 31, 2019
Before Judges Haas and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Cape May County,
Docket No. FM-05-0250-12.
Scott E. Becker, attorney for appellant/cross-
respondent.
Jeffery A. April, attorney for respondent/cross-
appellant.
PER CURIAM
In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, defendant appeals from the
Family Part's February 1, 2017 order that required defendant to pay plaintiff
$3000 of his $15,000 share of the proceeds from the sale of a former marital
property as a sanction for his violations of prior orders of the court. Plaintiff
also challenges the court's decision to partially grant plaintiff's request for
counsel fees by ordering him to pay plaintiff $3087.50 in fees. Plaintiff has
filed a cross-appeal, and argues that the court should have imposed a $15,000
sanction upon defendant for his prior non-compliance with court orders;
disregarded plaintiff's realtor's opinion as to the value of the former marital
property; and required defendant to pay additional counsel fees and costs.
Judge James H. Pickering considered these arguments, and rendered a
comprehensive written decision that fully detailed his findings of facts and
conclusions of law. Based on our review of the record and the applicable law,
we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Pickering. We add
the following brief comments.
The scope of our review of the Family Part's order 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). Thus, "[a] reviewing court should uphold the factual findings
A-2846-16T2
2
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)).
While we owe no special deference to the judge's legal conclusions,
Manalapan Realty, LP 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)
(quoting Cesare, 154 N.J. at 412). We will reverse the judge's decision "[o]nly
when the trial court's conclusions are so 'clearly mistaken' or 'wide of the mark'
. . . to ensure that there is not a denial of justice." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family
Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Family
Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605 (2007)).
Applying these principles, defendant's arguments concerning the February
1, 2017 order reveal nothing "so wide of the mark" that we could reasonably
conclude that a clear mistake was made by the judge. The record amply supports
A-2846-16T2
3
Judge Pickering's factual findings and, in light of those findings, his legal
conclusions are unassailable.
Affirmed.
A-2846-16T2
4