Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0182-13T3
04-29-2015
MARJORIE M. WALSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. GARVIN WALSH, Defendant-Respondent.
Joel M. Harris, attorney for plaintiff. Christopher W. Hyde, attorney for defendant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Yannotti, Fasciale and Hoffman. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FM-14-973-02. Joel M. Harris, attorney for plaintiff. Christopher W. Hyde, attorney for defendant. PER CURIAM
In this post-divorce matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals from that part of a January 4, 2013 order directing that defendant convey to her full ownership of a retirement account (the "retirement account"), and a June 28, 2013 order denying reconsideration. We remand and direct the judge to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the value of the retirement account and plaintiff's interest in it.
I.
Plaintiff and defendant (the "parties") married in June 1976. On October 31, 2003, they divorced pursuant to a dual judgment of divorce (JOD), the enforcement of which has been the subject of numerous motions and appeals. The JOD required "a general equitable distribution scheme of a 50/50 division." Pursuant to the JOD, defendant was "responsible for the entire college expenditures" of the parties' two older children.
We also considered defendant's appeal of several orders back-to-back with this appeal. Walsh v. Walsh, No. A-6161-12 (App. Div. Apr. 29, 2015).
The parties have three children.
In April 2012, plaintiff obtained an order (the "April order") for equitable distribution of the retirement account. The court appointed a financial expert to assist "in determining the total amount of monies withdrawn by [d]efendant from the [retirement] account . . . , which funds were to be replaced by him and split with [p]laintiff in accordance with the [JOD]." After meeting with the financial expert, the parties stipulated that three withdrawals were made:
Three distributions from the [retirement] account have taken place . . . . The first was in the amount of $15,365[], which the [p]arties believe was
paid to Trinity College. The second was $11,655.48, which the [p]arties agree was paid to [d]efendant. The third was $4,000, which the [p]arties agree was paid to [p]laintiff.
The records of the [retirement] account reviewed by the [p]arties show no deposits to have been made to the account . . . . The . . . statement balance of the [retirement] account reflects an Ending Net Value of $8,085.11.
It is unclear whether defendant used the retirement account to meet his obligation to pay college tuition for the older children.
Even though plaintiff maintained that she was entitled to the ending balance of $8,085.11, plaintiff filed a motion requesting an additional $7,467.69. The court ordered defendant to pay plaintiff the net balance $8,085.11, but did not address her request for the additional amount of $7,467.69.
Plaintiff moved for reconsideration arguing that $8,085.11 did not represent half of the retirement account. She requested the additional amount of $7,467.69, which she contended constituted the balance of her interest in the retirement account. Plaintiff essentially argued that the judge did not determine the amount of the retirement account and properly establish her interest in it. The court denied reconsideration.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the judge did not award her half of the retirement account. She contends that if defendant had replenished the amount of monies that had been withdrawn, her interest in the retirement account would be $15,552.79. She maintains that the judge erred by failing to determine the value of the retirement account and address the additional $7,467.69 that she had requested.
Plaintiff arrived at this amount by adding the three withdrawals ($15,365, $11,655.48, and $4000) to the stipulated balance ($8,085.11), dividing that sum by two, and then subtracting the $4000 withdrawal that was paid to her previously. Plaintiff reached her requested amount of $7,467.69 after further deducting the $8,085.11 that she had received by the orders under review.
--------
II.
It is well-settled that a trial judge "shall, by an opinion or memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state [his or her] conclusions of law thereon in all actions tried without a jury[.]" R. 1:7-4(a). "The rule requires specific findings of fact and conclusions of law[.]" Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 1 on R. 1:7-4 (2014). Our Supreme Court has expounded on this essential obligation:
Failure to perform that duty constitutes a disservice to the litigants, the attorneys and the appellate court. Naked conclusions do not satisfy the purpose of [Rule] 1:7-4. Rather, the trial court must state clearly its factual findings and correlate them with the relevant legal conclusions.
[Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).]
On this record, we are unable to determine whether the judge erred by solely awarding plaintiff $8,085.11. Although the judge accepted the parties' stipulation that $8,085.11 was the net balance, she did not first determine the total amount of money in the retirement account subject to equal distribution. Without making this finding, we cannot determine whether the judge erred.
According to the JOD, plaintiff was generally entitled to an equal equitable distribution scheme. Pursuant to the April order, defendant was required to replace the monies that he withdrew from the retirement account. Plaintiff was then entitled to half of the replaced amount. The parties stipulated that defendant withdrew $31,020.48.
The first distribution in the amount of $15,365 may have been used for Trinity College. It is undisputed that defendant has the sole obligation to pay the tuition for the children's education. The judge did not address whether defendant was obligated to replenish the retirement account by that amount before the court distributed the money. And if that distribution went solely towards defendant's college tuition obligations, then defendant may have received a windfall. The judge did not fully consider these issues.
The judge also did not determine, before distributing the retirement account equally, whether defendant was obligated to replace the second distribution that he had made to himself in the amount of $11,655.48. According to the April order, he was required to do so. And the judge did not address plaintiff's request for judgment in the amount of $7,467.69.
Defendant contends that he used a prior "excess payment [to plaintiff] to offset" the withdrawals from the retirement account, but he did not produce to the judge "complete financial records from that time" to support this contention, and the judge made no such finding. On remand, we leave to the discretion of the judge whether to re-open the record to address plaintiff's interest in the retirement account and whether defendant has otherwise repaid plaintiff her 50/50 share as he contends.
Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION