J.T.S. v. S.R.
| Decision Date | 19 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | A-3309-181 [1] |
| Parties | J.T.S., [2] Plaintiff-Respondent, v. S.R., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted May 19, 2021
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No FM-14-1195-15.
Hegge &Confusione, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Michael Confusione, of counsel and on the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
Before Judges Sumners and Mitterhoff.
Defendant S.R. appeals from the Family Part's September 14, 2018 judgment of divorce and March 19, 2019 order denying, in large part, both parties' motions for reconsideration. She challenges the trial judge's rulings regarding parenting time, attorney's fees, child support alimony, and equitable distribution.
On appeal, defendant raises the following issues for our consideration:
We conclude there is no merit to any of these arguments and affirm the judgment of divorce and March 19, 2019 order in all respects.
The parties were married on September 10, 2011. Plaintiff filed for divorce on April 2, 2015. Two children were born during the marriage. A trial was held over seven non-consecutive days. A judgment of divorce was entered on September 14, 2018. Thereafter, defendant moved for reconsideration requesting several amendments with regard to parenting time, attorney's fees, arrears, child support, alimony, and equitable distribution. Defendant also requested that the court enforce the payment schedule set forth in the judgment of divorce. Plaintiff cross-moved for reconsideration of the judge's decisions regarding parenting time, arrears, and two debts he was ordered to repay to defendant. On March 19, 2019, the judge denied both parties' requests to make substantive changes to the judgment of divorce but ordered plaintiff to comply with the payment schedule.
As an attorney, plaintiff was the primary wage earner during the marriage. His average annual income from 2012 through 2015 was $452, 541. Defendant has a sporadic employment history, having worked only part-time for most of her adult life. Before meeting plaintiff, she was a freelance makeup artist and sold cosmetics. She was last employed as a tarot card reader, working one day a week, but left that employment shortly after the parties were married. Defendant collects rental income from four properties; three of which she coowns with her siblings and another which she owns by herself. For the purposes of equitable distribution and alimony, the trial judge found defendant's post-marital annual income was $30, 000.
The parties met around June 2006 and began dating shortly thereafter. In April 2009, plaintiff purchased a home in Morristown where the parties resided during their marriage. Defendant gave up an apartment she shared with a roommate and moved into the house with plaintiff soon after it was purchased. At that time, unbeknownst to defendant, plaintiff was still married to his second wife. His second marriage was dissolved in March 2010. The parties were engaged to be married in September 2010.
In order to pay for the home, plaintiff contributed approximately $188, 000 toward the down payment and closing costs, while defendant's parents provided another $60, 000. Plaintiff also spent approximately $50, 000 in home improvements prior to the marriage. Title to the property was placed in plaintiff's name only.
At trial, plaintiff testified that the parties never intended for defendant to have any ownership interest in the home. He alleged that the $60, 000 was an interest-free loan to him, not defendant, with no repayment schedule. Defendant disputed that the money was a loan to plaintiff, but rather a gift to her, from her parents, to assist in the purchase of her first marital home. She claimed that she agreed not be listed as an owner because plaintiff told her they would be unable to secure a mortgage if she was placed on the deed due to her poor credit. Defendant later testified, however, that when the home was purchased, she did not have poor credit. Although she understood that her credit rating was unlikely to prevent the parties from getting a mortgage, she agreed to the arrangement because plaintiff gave her and her father his word that she would be added to the deed later.
Defendant's father testified that he and his wife gave the money to their daughter to help purchase her first home and did not expect to be repaid. He believed the house would be placed in both parties' names, but testified that he never spoke to plaintiff about how the property would be titled. The final judgment of divorce granted plaintiff sole ownership of the property.
Plaintiff entered the marriage with over $300, 000 of tax debt. He claimed that he discussed his back taxes with defendant and that she entered the marriage fully aware of the situation. Defendant testified that she began acting as plaintiff's "personal accountant" in 2010. Because the parties opened a joint account before they were engaged, she had a granular understanding of plaintiff's finances. Defendant conceded that she knew plaintiff filed tax extensions each year prior to the marriage, but testified that she was unaware of the extent of the debt until the parties returned from their honeymoon, when they learned he was being audited for each year from 2005 to 2010. During the audits, defendant played a critical role in negotiating penalties, interest, and payment plans with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both parties took out several lines of credit to service the tax debt.
In 2013, the IRS threatened to place a lien against the Morristown property unless plaintiff made a lump sum payment. The parties borrowed $85, 000 from defendant's parents to pay the IRS. Defendant's father testified that he provided the loan only because the parties were in danger of losing their home, and that plaintiff promised to pay him back. Defendant claims plaintiff used $486, 000 of marital income to pay premarital tax liabilities.
Defendant argued that both before and during the marriage, plaintiff abused drugs and alcohol. She testified that in 2008, plaintiff stopped going to work on a regular basis due to his substance abuse and began having problems with clients. Defendant convinced plaintiff to sell a bar that he owned in order to refocus on his legal career. In 2009, after defendant allegedly found plaintiff passed out in the bathroom, he attended a weekend seminar in an effort to get his substance abuse under control. Plaintiff temporarily reduced his drug use, but resumed shortly thereafter.
Defendant alleged that in 2010, the Trenton Bar Association investigated plaintiff's suspected substance abuse after he failed a drug test required for a life-insurance policy. She further alleged that in April or May of 2010, "two people that looked like cops from the criminal investigation bureau" came to the parties' home with a drug-sniffing dog and requested to search the house. She refused, but then found cocaine and paraphernalia hidden throughout the home. Defendant also testified that during the marriage, plaintiff consumed about six bottles of vodka each week.
M.K., defendant's former roommate, A.R., defendant's brother-in-law, and A.C., the parties' former housekeeper and babysitter, also testified with regard to plaintiff's purported substance abuse. M.K. alleged that plaintiff drank excessively from 2006 until he moved out after filing for divorce. Although she never saw plaintiff use any illicit substances, M.K. testified that she was with defendant in 2010 when investigators from the Trenton Bar Association came to the parties' home. When she helped defendant search the house, they discovered dozens of small plastics bags with white residue inside of them.[3]
A.R. testified that he observed plaintiff use cocaine on three occasions between 2006 and 2010. A.C. testified that during the marriage, she disposed of several empty bottles of vodka each week and occasionally found folded dollar bills with white residue in the laundry.
Defendant's concern about plaintiff's drug use prompted her to organize an intervention in January 2013. She testified that plaintiff abstained from drugs and alcohol for a few months after the intervention, but began using again the following St. Patrick's Day and continued through the end of their marriage.
After plaintiff filed for...
To continue reading
Request your trial