Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2157-11T2
05-20-2013
MARTHA DRUMMOND, Plaintiff-Respondent v. VERNON L. DRUMMOND, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
Vernon L. Drummond, Jr., appellant pro se. Respondent has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Axelrad and Haas.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Cumberland County, Docket No. FM-06-77-11.
Vernon L. Drummond, Jr., appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Defendant Vernon L. Drummond, Jr. appeals from the October 31, 2011 final judgment of divorce entered by Judge Julio L. Mendez. A lengthy oral opinion summarizing the judge's findings was placed on the record on September 23, 2011 following a two-day trial. Based upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Mendez. We add only the following brief comments.
Contrary to the requirement of Rule 2:5-3(b), defendant did not file a complete transcript of all of the trial proceedings. Instead, defendant only supplied an excerpt from plaintiff's testimony on cross-examination, together with a transcript of the judge's oral decision. Therefore, we rely upon the judge's oral opinion as the touchstone for disposition of the issues in this case.
The scope of our review of the Family Part's order is limited. We owe substantial deference to the Family Part's findings of fact because of that court's special expertise in family matters. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998). Thus, "'[a] reviewing court should uphold the factual findings undergirding the trial court's decision if they are supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence on the record.'" MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 191 N.J. 240, 253-54 (2007) (quoting N.J Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007)) (alteration in original).
While we owe no special deference to the judge's legal conclusions, Manalapan Realty v. Manalapan Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995), we "'should not disturb the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless . . . convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice' or when we determine the court has palpably abused its discretion." Parish v. Parish, 412 N.J. Super. 39, 47 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 412). We will only reverse the judge's decision when it is necessary to "'ensure that there is not a denial of justice' because the family court's 'conclusions are [] 'clearly mistaken' or 'wide of the mark.'" Id. at 48 (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008)) (alteration in original).
Defendant's arguments concerning the amount and duration of alimony, the awarding of reimbursement alimony, and the requirement that he contribute to plaintiff's medical insurance and counsel fees, in light of the record, reveal nothing "so wide of the mark" that a clear mistake was made. Ibid. As for the balance of his arguments, they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E).
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office
CLERK OF THE APPELJATE DIVISION