Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3973-13T3 DOCKET NO. A-5017-13T3
02-01-2016
DEBORAH J. MATUSOW, n/k/a DEBORAH J. EVANS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GARY A. MATUSOW, Defendant-Appellant.
Gary A. Matusow, appellant pro se. Puff & Cockerill, attorneys for respondent (Christine C. Cockerill, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fisher and Espinosa. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Cumberland County, Docket No. FM-06-300-10. Gary A. Matusow, appellant pro se. Puff & Cockerill, attorneys for respondent (Christine C. Cockerill, on the brief). PER CURIAM
The parties' 1988 marriage produced three children and ended with the entry of an October 26, 2011 divorce judgment, which was based on a marital settlement agreement (MSA). Despite their settlement, the parties have engaged in further disputes regarding the judgment's implementation; these consolidated appeals are one such chapter in this matter's history.
In these appeals, defendant seeks our review of a February 14, 2014 post-judgment matrimonial order, which disposed of a variety of subjects, and an April 17, 2014 order, which also resolved numerous issues triggered by a motion to enforce the February 14, 2014 order. Both these orders relate in part to a provision of the MSA that, when the time came, one of the parties' many motor vehicles would be provided to the eldest child for her use. Another aspect of these orders concerns the timing of plaintiff's obligation to pay $28,717.50 to defendant. The judge had, in an even earlier motion, disposed of this dispute about the timing of the $28,717.50 payment; the orders in question here dealt with defendant's multiple requests for reconsideration of that earlier ruling. The orders in question also memorialize a rejection of defendant's request for a change in his child support obligation.
At the time of the divorce, the parties apparently owned more than a dozen automobiles. --------
In appealing these orders, defendant specifically argues:
I. [THE] ORDER MANDATING DEFENDANT ("DAD") TO TURN OVER CIVIC TO "MOM" AND PUT IN HER NAME AND "DAD" WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE THE CIVIC PAYMENT AS WELL AS PAY FOR INSURANCE ON PLAINTIFF'S VEHICLE (THE SCION) IS VIOLATING THE [MSA] REGARDING EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION AND AWARDING PLAINTIFF WITH A VEHICLE THAT I (DEFENDANT) OWNS. ALSO, TO INSURE A VEHICLE THAT I DO NOT OWN IS NOT LEGALLY POSSIBLE.After close examination of the record on appeal in light of these contentions, we find insufficient merit in defendant's arguments to warrant further discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the experienced matrimonial judge.
II. PER THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MSA OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OWED BY PLAINTIFF THE OUTSTANDING [$]28,717.50 AS OF OCTOBER 26, 2011 IS STILL NOT PAID. THE COURT ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT WILL NOT BE PAID BALANCE UNTIL A JOINTLY OWNED FORMER MARITAL PROPERTY IS SOLD (NAMELY 599 SHERMAN AVE.).
III. ATTORNEY FEES WERE IMPROPERLY AWARDED.
IV. REQUIRING THE DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL INFORMATION BY JANUARY 30 OF EACH YEAR CHANGED THE PRIOR ORDER OF THE COURT WITHOUT ANY SHOWING OF CHANGE IN CIRCUM-STANCES.
V. THE COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO RETURN CHILD SUPPORT TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT WHEN THE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR INCREASING THE SUPPORT NO LONGER EXISTED.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION