From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baptiste v. Jallow-Baptiste

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
Mar 6, 2017
DOCKET NO. A-1172-15T3 (App. Div. Mar. 6, 2017)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-1172-15T3

03-06-2017

RUPERT E. BAPTISTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FATOU A. JALLOW-BAPTISTE, n/k/a FATOU A. JALLOW, Defendant-Respondent.

Rupert Baptiste, appellant pro se. Respondent has not filed a brief.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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. Before Judges Nugent and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket No. FM-20-669-14. Rupert Baptiste, appellant pro se. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Rupert Baptiste appeals from the October 2, 2015 order denying his motion in the Family Part for relief following the entry of a judgment of divorce (JOD). We affirm.

The parties were divorced in 2007. Plaintiff filed a motion in 2015 seeking to decrease his child support obligation by $40; order probation to stop its "harassing" phone calls; correct his address for the purposes of probation; and vacate the JOD.

The address issue had been rectified prior to oral argument. --------

Judge James P. Wilson heard oral argument and denied plaintiff all of the requested relief in a thorough oral decision on October 2, 2015. He concluded that plaintiff had not made a "prima facie showing that there's been a change in circumstances which warrants a modification of child support." The judge further stated that plaintiff had not satisfied his burden of proof to support the issuance of an order vacating his divorce.

On appeal, plaintiff reiterates the arguments he made before the trial judge. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we deem these arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Wilson as reflected in his well-reasoned oral opinion. See also Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980).

Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION


Summaries of

Baptiste v. Jallow-Baptiste

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
Mar 6, 2017
DOCKET NO. A-1172-15T3 (App. Div. Mar. 6, 2017)
Case details for

Baptiste v. Jallow-Baptiste

Case Details

Full title:RUPERT E. BAPTISTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FATOU A. JALLOW-BAPTISTE…

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Mar 6, 2017

Citations

DOCKET NO. A-1172-15T3 (App. Div. Mar. 6, 2017)