STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RICKY W. SESSOMS (09-05-1233, ATLANTIC 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0597-15T3
SHELLEY MIZRAHI,
Plaintiff-Respondent/
Cross-Appellant,
v.
ALBERT SROUR,
Defendant-Appellant/
Cross-Respondent.
______________________________
Submitted February 16, 2017 – Decided April 20, 2017
Before Judges Hoffman and Whipple.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth
County, Docket No. FM-13-1983-14.
Agnes Rybar, attorney for appellant.
Keith, Winters & Wenning, L.L.C., attorneys
for respondent (Brian D. Winters, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from July 17 and August 28, 2015 Family
Part orders. Plaintiff cross-appealed. We affirm in part, and
we remand to the trial court for clarification of the child support
arrears.
Plaintiff and defendant married in October 1996 and had four
children. The parties divorced pursuant to a New York Judgment
of Divorce on December 17, 2012.1
The Judgment of Divorce awarded plaintiff seventy percent and
defendant thirty percent of the marital estate, primarily
consisting of the family's house. Use and occupancy of the house,
located in Brooklyn, New York, was given exclusively to plaintiff.
If plaintiff could not buy out defendant's interest in the home,
she was to sell the house. Plaintiff was entitled to receive
credit from defendant's share of the sale proceeds of $70,000 for
current outstanding attorney fees owed by plaintiff, $47,324 for
support and arrears, and $5,000 for interim attorney fees unpaid
by the defendant, as well as the outstanding balance of tuition
owed to the children's school.
In February 2013, defendant filed an order to show cause in
New York, seeking to vacate the judgment of divorce and stay the
sale of the Brooklyn house. In response, plaintiff filed an order
to show cause seeking an injunction against defendant interfering
1 Numerous other post-judgment orders were entered in the New
York courts prior to the motions, which are the subject of this
appeal.
2 A-0597-15T3
in the sale of the martial home. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit
and supporting documents establishing the house was sold and
detailing the various disbursements and credits from the proceeds,
which left nothing to distribute to defendant. Because the marital
home had already been sold, the New York court dismissed
plaintiff's application as moot and denied defendant's motion for
a stay. Defendant did not appeal. On August 25, 2014, plaintiff
registered the Judgment of Divorce in New Jersey after she moved
to the state with the four children.
In December 2014, plaintiff moved before the Family Part in
Monmouth County to deny defendant any unsupervised time with their
youngest son. Plaintiff also sought an application through the
Monmouth County Court Family Support Center to "establish and
transfer child support arrears from New York to New Jersey."
A January 8, 2015 order provided the following:
1. The Defendant's child support arrears
accrued in New York State shall be set for
purposes of collection and garnishment in the
State of New Jersey via Family Support Center
(Probation) in the amount of $34,973.20 which
reflects the total amount due less all
applicable credits to the Defendant for
amounts previously paid or to be credited
. . . .
2. There continues to be dispute over $15,511
in arrears to the extent that this amount has
been reduced to a Judgment in the State of New
York, which may be enforced in New Jersey as
a civil judgment. The parties shall, with
3 A-0597-15T3
counsel, mediate this issue and provide proofs
with regard to whether or not that amount has
been properly credited or deducted from the
amount permitted to be set as enforceable
arrears in N[ew] J[ersey]. If there is no
agreement on that issue, counsel shall submit
written proofs to the Court and the Court
shall determine whether or not it is
appropriate to add $15,511 to the amount of
arrears established in New Jersey.
On February 26, 2015, defendant filed an Order to Show Cause
seeking injunctive relief. Defendant asserted, among other
things, plaintiff had fraudulently transferred ownership of her
Eatontown home to her mother to frustrate his ability to receive
his share of the proceeds of the Brooklyn home.
In May 2015, defendant filed a motion, requesting among other
things, the court find plaintiff failed to provide an accounting
from the proceeds of the sale of their marital home. Plaintiff
cross-moved to fix child support and alimony arrears at $79,694.20
as of June 5, 2015, and to enter judgment against defendant in
that amount. Plaintiff arrived at this amount by combining the
amount of a New York judgment, $15,511, with amounts she claimed
represented separate New York arrears of $34,973.20 and New Jersey
arrears of $29,210.
In a July 17, 2015 order, the judge denied defendant's request
to revisit distribution of proceeds from the Brooklyn home. She
found plaintiff had provided an adequate accounting regarding the
4 A-0597-15T3
net proceeds from the sale and denied defendant's request to compel
plaintiff to pay defendant his thirty percent of the proceeds.
The court found no basis to restrain plaintiff from transferring
her interest in her home, or to join the plaintiff's mother in
this action, because there were no open equitable distribution
issues as the distribution issues had already been litigated in
New York.
The judge denied plaintiff's motion to set child support
arrears at $79,694.20. Plaintiff and defendant both filed motions
for reconsideration of the July 17, 2015 order. On August 28,
2015, the judge entered an order finding plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration untimely because the arrears were fixed in the
January 8, 2015 order, and a motion for reconsideration should
have been filed within twenty days from the date of that order.
The judge also found the court was "fully satisfied that the
plaintiff has provided sufficient documentation of the use of the
proceeds of the marital home." This appeal followed.
Defendant argues the trial court acted improperly by
accepting plaintiff's accounting of the sale of the marital home
because the accounting had many discrepancies. Defendant argues
the trial court should not have accepted the accounting because
defendant's evidence presented a genuine issue of material fact,
5 A-0597-15T3
and thus, the trial court's failure to require additional discovery
or an evidentiary hearing was an abuse of discretion. We disagree.
Material factual disputes should be resolved through plenary
hearings, but "not every factual dispute that arises in the context
of matrimonial proceedings triggers the need for a plenary
hearing." Harrington v. Harrington, 281 N.J. Super. 39, 47 (App.
Div.) (citing Adler v. Adler, 229 N.J. Super. 496, 500 (App. Div.
1998)), certif. denied, 142 N.J. 455 (1995). Trial judges "cannot
resolve material factual disputes upon conflicting affidavits and
certifications." Ibid. (citing Fusco v. Fusco, 186 N.J. Super.
321, 329 (App. Div. 1982); Tancredi v. Tancredi, 101 N.J. Super.
259, 262 (App. Div. 1968)). Based upon a trial court's ability
to "hear[] the case, see[] and observe[] the witnesses," we give
deference to a trial court's credibility determinations. Cesare
v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998) (quoting Pascale v. Pascale,
113 N.J. 20, 33 (1988)).
Our review of the record shows plaintiff provided the trial
court with the March 18, 2013 affidavit she filed in response to
the February 13, 2013 order to show cause defendant filed in New
York. The affidavit provided a detailed explanation of how the
proceeds from the sale of the house were distributed and what
credits were applied. Included in her affidavit was a detailed
account of defendant's liabilities credited against his thirty
6 A-0597-15T3
percent share of proceeds. We note the New York court determined,
in a June 6, 2013 order, defendant's request for a stay was denied
as the sale of the marital home had already occurred. We also
note defendant did not appeal that order, nor did he move for
reconsideration to challenge plaintiff's accounting in the New
York courts. Defendant also did not appeal the final judgment of
divorce. Because the New York court determined defendant's
challenge to the distribution of the marital estate was moot in
2013, and that order was never appealed, we are satisfied the
trial judge correctly determined plaintiff's disclosure
demonstrated that no open issues remained concerning equitable
distribution.
Defendant also argues plaintiff made a fraudulent conversion
when she transferred the New Jersey property to her mother, and
the trial court erred by not allowing defendant to join plaintiff's
mother as a party and failed to restrain plaintiff and her mother
from selling the property. We reject these arguments.
The judge noted in her decision, "the only matters open before
the court [were] potential changes in custody and parenting time."
Additionally, plaintiff's mother had no part in these proceedings,
and defendant is not entitled to recover anything from her.
The judge declined to restrain plaintiff and her mother from
selling the New Jersey property plaintiff bought with the proceeds
7 A-0597-15T3
from the sale of the marital home. Defendant had no claim against
plaintiff at the time of the transfer because the court had
accepted plaintiff's accounting of the sale of the marital home.
We discern no error in the judge's conclusion.
Plaintiff argues the judge made a mathematical error and the
total arrears of child support should be $69,661 because the
$15,511 support judgment from New York should have been added to
$54,150, which plaintiff argues is the amount owed from September
12, 2013, to June 5, 2015. Defendant argues the motion for
reconsideration of the January 8, 2015 order is not timely, but
fails to provide any legal citations as to why this is not timely.
He argues if the motion is found to be timely, an abuse of
discretion standard applies. Defendant also asserts there was no
mathematical error by the court.
Based on our review of the record, the trial judge's orders
are conflicting. In the January 8, 2015 order, the trial judge
stated child support arrears from New York were $34,973.20. The
trial judge noted a continuing dispute over the New York judgment
for $15,511 in arrears and "whether or not that amount has been
properly credited or deducted from the amount permitted to be set
as enforceable arrears in N.J." The January 8, 2015 order directed
the parties to mediate the issue and submit proofs "with regard
to whether or not that amount has been properly credited or
8 A-0597-15T3
deducted from the amount permitted to bet set as enforceable
arrears in N.J."
In the July 17, 2015 order, the trial judge addressed arrears
again, noting plaintiff argued the amount of arrears for both New
York and New Jersey should be set at $79,694.20, but defendant
opposed that amount "and certifie[d] that the court order of
January 8, 2015 lumped all the arrears together." The trial judge
cited the January 8, 2015 order, including the discussion of the
dispute over the $15,511. The trial judge "agree[d] with the
Defendant's interpretation and f[ound] that the arrears amount has
been set. There has been no timely motion for reconsideration of
that order, or appeal."
In her August 28, 2015 order, the trial judge noted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on the arrears was untimely
because the arrears were set in the January 8, 2015 order, not the
July 2015 order, and a motion for reconsideration should have been
filed within twenty days from January 8, 2015.
The trial judge specifically stated in the January order that
$15,511 was in dispute and the parties should mediate the issue,
but later agreed with defendant the January order had set the
arrears, including the $15,511 she previously said was in dispute.
In the August order, the judge then denied plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration, stating the motion for reconsideration of the
9 A-0597-15T3
arrears should have followed the January order; however, in the
January order, the judge had informed the parties the arrears were
in dispute and did not state she was setting the arrears for both
New Jersey and New York. Therefore, we remand this matter to the
trial court for a determination of the arrears due to plaintiff
for both New York and New Jersey.
Affirmed in part; remanded in part. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
10 A-0597-15T3