Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4212-15T2
03-27-2017
DEBORAH VENUS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PATRICK VENUS, Defendant-Appellant.
Patrick Venus, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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 Sabatino and Nugent. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Sussex County, Docket No. FM-19-281-09. Patrick Venus, appellant pro se. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
This Family Part action concerning child support and alimony returns to us after remand. In our initial decision, we summarized the basis for the appeal by defendant Patrick Venus and our reason for remanding the matter to the trial court:
Defendant Patrick Venus appeals from the Dual Final Judgment of Divorce that formally ended his eight-year marriage to plaintiff
Deborah Venus. Although this divorce action was tried over more than twenty-five non-consecutive days, beginning January 25, 2011, and ending with the court's decision and entry of judgment on November 17, 2014, the issues defendant raises on appeal are narrow: did the trial court err in determining defendant's imputed income, thereby skewing the alimony and child support awards; and, did the trial court err by awarding plaintiff alimony for a period of three and one-half years after defendant had supported plaintiff and their two children throughout the protracted divorce proceedings. Finding an inadequate basis for the amount of income the trial court imputed to defendant, we reverse and remand for amplification of the court's opinion and, if necessary, re-computation of alimony and child support. We affirm the duration of the alimony award.
[Venus v. Venus, No. A-5212-13 (App. Div. Mar. 14, 2016) (slip op. at 1-2).]
On remand, the trial court issued a comprehensive written opinion explaining the many reasons for the amount of income the court imputed to defendant, as well as its credibility determination concerning defendant's testimony. The trial court maintained income in the amount of $125,000 should be imputed to defendant.
Defendant appeals. Having carefully considered his arguments in light of the court's amplification, we affirm, substantially for the reasons expressed by the trial court in its May 27, 2016 supplemental statement of reasons. Defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION