Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3577-13T3
06-18-2015
I.L., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. C.Z. a/k/a C.Z.R.L., Y.Y.W., Defendant-Appellant.
Wang Gao & Associates, P.C., attorneys for appellant (Heng Wang on the briefs). Stuart J. Schneider, attorney for respondent.
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner, Haas and Higbee. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County Docket No. FM-12-1020-12. Wang Gao & Associates, P.C., attorneys for appellant (Heng Wang on the briefs). Stuart J. Schneider, attorney for respondent. PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from a February 24, 2014 dual judgment of divorce, which the trial court entered after conducting a sixteen-day bench trial. After reading the trial transcripts and reviewing the exhibits provided to us, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Lisa M. Vignuolo in her comprehensive written opinion issued on February 24, 2014. We add the following comments.
On this appeal, our review of Judge Vignuolo's decision is extremely limited. We will not disturb her factual findings so long as they are supported by sufficient credible evidence. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998). We owe particular deference to the judge's evaluation of witness credibility, and to her expertise in addressing matrimonial issues. Id. at 412-13. Likewise we review a Family Part judge's alimony determination for abuse of discretion. See Rolnick v. Rolnick, 262 N.J. Super. 343, 360 (App. Div. 1993).
In this case, Judge Vignuolo made extensive and detailed credibility findings, which were central to her decision of the issues. There is no need to repeat here the parties' assorted accusations against each other. Suffice to say that Judge Vignuolo did not credit those allegations, and the record amply supports her findings. This was a three-year marriage between two highly-educated individuals, and the record likewise supports Judge Vignuolo's decision, after a thorough review of the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b), that an alimony award was not justified.
The judge required plaintiff to pay all of defendant's loans and medical bills incurred during the marriage. Plaintiff has not appealed from that decision. However, the judge denied defendant's claims for equitable distribution of what the judge found were plaintiff's pre-marital assets. The latter decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence, including the judge's evaluation of witness credibility. The judge rejected defendant's marital tort claims, because she found that defendant and her expert witness were not believable. Again, we cannot second-guess those findings.
Finally, after reviewing the factors set forth in Rule 5:3-5(c), Judge Vignuolo determined that the parties should each pay their own counsel fees. We review a trial court's decision of a fee application for abuse of discretion, and we will disturb such a determination only in rare circumstances. See Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292, 317 (1995); Addesa v. Addesa, 392 N.J. Super. 58, 78 (App. Div. 2007). We find no basis to interfere with the trial court's decision here.
On this appeal, defendant raises the following issues:
POINT I
THE STANDARD FOR APPELLATE REVIEW DICTATES THAT THIS COURT MODIFY THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT.
POINT II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING [DEFENDANT'S] REQUEST FOR AN AWARD OF ALIMONY BECAUSE THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTORY FACTORS DEMONSTRATES THAT [DEFENDANT] IS ENTITLED TO MULTIPLE FORMS OF ALIMONY.
POINT III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT FAILED TO PROVIDE [DEFENDANT] WITH A SUFFICIENT AWARD BASED UPON THE STATUTORY FACTORS AND [PLAINTIFF'S] EXTENSIVE FINANCIAL ASSETS.
POINT IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING [DEFENDANT'S] MALLAMO CLAIMS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRODUCED AT TRIAL.
POINT V
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING [DEFENDANT'S] REQUEST FOR COUNSEL AND EXPERT FEES.
POINT VI
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING [DEFENDANT'S] TEVIS CLAIMS IN LIGHT OF ALL OF THE TESTIMONIAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT TRIAL THROUGH [DEFENDANT] AND HER MEDICAL EXPERT.
POINT VII
ON REMAND, THIS MATTER SHOULD BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT JUDGE.
Defendant's claims are primarily based on her version of the facts, which the trial judge did not credit. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Judge Vignuolo fully and fairly addressed the pertinent issues, and defendant's appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion here. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION