N.J.S.A. 2A:34-28, through-52; N.J.S.A. 9:2-1, through-21; N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-21, through-62, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-11, through-24. Plaintiff responds, asserting the court's jurisdiction to consider and grant the relief sought by plaintiff pursuant to the language of R. 5, part V, and reported case law historically interpreting the equitable power of the Chancery Division to consider the issues herein raised, citing Leith v. Horgan, 13 N.J. 467, 100 A.2d 175 (1953); The "Historical and Organizational Note" to Part V of the New Jersey Court Rules ( R. 5:1-1); Belgacem v. Veneziano, 218 N.J. Super. 6, 526 A.2d 1090 (App.Div. 1986); Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, 139 N.J. Eq. 97, 108, 49 A.2d 896 (E. A. 1946); Graf v. Hope Building Corporation, 132 Misc. 352, 229 N.Y.S. 455 (N.Y.Sup. 1928), aff'd, 226 A.D. 787, 234 N.Y.S. 803 (1 Dept. 1929), rev'd, 254 N.Y. 1, 171 N.E. 884, 70 A.L.R. 984 (N.Y. 1930); Griswold v. Hazard, 141 U.S. 260, 11 S.Ct. 972, 35 L.Ed. 678 (1891). Plaintiff specifically argues that the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, has jurisdiction over all family actions.

The purpose of R. 1:13-4 is to insure that cases are transferred to the proper court when a court has determined that the case has been filed in the wrong division. Belgacem v.Veneziano, 218 N.J. Super. 6, 9 (App. Div. 1986). "No action is to be dismissed merely because it has been brought in or transferred to the wrong division." O'Neill v. Vreeland, 6 N.J. 158, 169 (1951).

Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 476 (1993); Lopatkin v. Lopatkin, 236 N.J. Super. 555, 557-58 (Ch. Div. 1989); see also R. 1:13-4; O'Neill v. Vreeland, 6 N.J. 158, 169 (1951); Belgacem v. Veneziano, 218 N.J. Super. 6, 9 (App. Div. 1986). --------

We leave it to the trial court to determine whether the estate's claims should be addressed in the Family Part of the Chancery Division or transferred to another Part or Division of the Superior Court as the matter proceeds. See R. 5:1-2(a); In re Estate of Roccamonte, 174 N.J. 381, 398-99, 808 A.2d 838 (2002); Conforti v. Guliadis, 128 N.J. 318, 323, 608 A.2d 225 (1992); Dey v. Varone, 333 N.J.Super. 616, 619-20, 756 A.2d 652 (Ch.Div. 2000); Carr v. Burgess, 264 N.J.Super. 191, 193-94, 623 A.2d 1384 (Ch.Div. 1991), aff'd, o.b., 264 N.J.Super. 10, 623 A.2d 1384 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 476, 634 A.2d 524 (1993); Lopatkin, supra, 236 N.J.Super. at 557-58, 566 A.2d 559; see also R. 1:13-4; O'Neill v. Vreeland, 6 N.J. 158, 169, 77 A.2d 899 (1951); Belgacem v. Veneziano, 218 N.J.Super. 6, 9, 526 A.2d 1090 (App.Div. 1986). Reversed and remanded to the Family Part.