M.J. v. R.S.

Decision Date23 November 2022
Docket NumberA-1076-21
PartiesM.J.[1], Plaintiff-Respondent, v. R.S., Defendant-Appellant.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division

M.J.[1], Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.

R.S., Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-1076-21

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

November 23, 2022


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued October 26, 2022

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FM-02-0456-20.

R.S., appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

Before Haas and Mitterhoff, Judges.

PER CURIAM

1

In this post-judgment matter, defendant R.S. appeals from the court's November 5, 2021 order denying his motion to terminate alimony, refund alimony arrears, and refund alimony paid to plaintiff while plaintiff was institutionalized. We affirm.

We discern the following facts from the record. On May 15, 2014, the parties were divorced in Ocean County by way of a final judgment of divorce (JOD). The JOD incorporated an equitable distribution agreement providing that defendant would pay alimony until plaintiff retired. Approximately two years later, on January 3, 2016, the Bergen County family court reduced defendant's alimony obligation to $877.00 bi-weekly.

On October 4, 2019, the judge denied defendant's request to terminate, suspend, or modify alimony payments. After defendant appealed, we reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. We disagreed with the judge's finding that plaintiff's institutionalization was not a factor worthy of consideration in defendant's change of circumstance motion. See Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 146 (1980) (holding that an alimony agreement may be modified upon a showing of changed circumstances). We found that "defendant did demonstrate a significant change of circumstances as to plaintiff's needs,"

2

necessitating a plenary hearing and discovery "focused on the issue of plaintiff's ongoing financial status."

Unfortunately, no plenary analysis ever occurred because the parties entered into a consent order that provided as follows:

1. Defendant's alimony payment in the amount of $877 biweekly is suspended effective immediately
2. Defendant's alimony obligation shall remain suspended until such time as the Plaintiff is released from Ancora Psychiatric Hospital.
3. Plaintiff, or someone on Plaintiff's behalf, shall notify Defendant of the discharge date in the event Plaintiff is discharged from the hospital.
4. Defendant's alimony payments shall resume upon Plaintiff's filing of a Motion with Certification to the Court stating that she is discharged with Notice to Defendant of the date and time of the Hearing for said Motion with opportunity to appear.
5. If Plaintiff is subsequently re-admitted to a hospital, Plaintiff, or someone on Plaintiff's behalf shall notify Defendant immediately, and Defendant's alimony obligation shall be suspended from the date of the re-admission until such time as Plaintiff is discharged and applies for resumption of payments with the Notices and Motion procedure set forth in paragraphs three and four.
6. All other provisions of the parties' Marital Settlement Agreement shall remain unchanged.
3

Defendant was not notified of plaintiff's release from Ancora Psychiatric Hospital. Approximately ten months later, on September 20, 2021, defendant filed a notice of motion requesting the following:

1. Termination of alimony payments to Plaintiff (M. [J.]).
2. Alimony arrears refunded: $4,539.73.
3. Refund of alimony to Plaintiff paid via ExpertPay.com while Plaintiff was in the hospital, retired or incarcerated (8/10/2018 - 11/02/2021) $51,743.00.
4. Requesting that the Courts do not submit any personal information to the Plaintiff due to a Permanent Restraining Order.

The certification in support of the motion, signed by defendant on August 20, 2021, alleged that plaintiff was retired and, pursuant to the equitable distribution agreement, not entitled to alimony. Defendant also stated that plaintiff was in the hospital from June 2018 until April 2021 and, therefore, defendant was entitled to a refund for alimony payments during that period.[2]

4

The Family Part judge held a hearing on November 5, 2021, to address both defendant's motion and "a cross-motion of sorts" filed by the plaintiff.[3]Both parties appeared and testified. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge ordered as follows:

1. Defendant's Notice of Motion to terminate alimony payments to Plaintiff is DENIED.
2. Defendant's Notice
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT