Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bailey v. Bailey

June 19, 2007

RICHARD I. BAILEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DAWN D. BAILEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County, FM-08-960-05.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted March 28, 2007

Before Judges Parrillo and Sapp-Peterson.

Plaintiff Richard I. Bailey appeals a final judgment of divorce (FJD) entered on June 27, 2006. According to plaintiff, prior to the entry of judgment, the court (1) failed to give him an opportunity to fully develop his case, (2) failed to equitably distribute the marital assets, and (3) in making custody and support determinations, failed to consider the best interests of the minor child. We affirm.

The parties were married on November 26, 1988. One child, Victor, was born of the marriage on August 13, 1989. The couple resided in Sewell in a home that plaintiff purchased in 1987 along with his mother, Louise Link. During the course of the marriage, defendant claimed that plaintiff subjected her to acts of domestic violence. On May 19, 1993, as a result of the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order, plaintiff was ordered to vacate the marital home. Defendant was awarded custody of Victor as part of the restraining order. Defendant continued to reside in the Sewell home with Victor after the separation until May 1996 when she and Victor relocated to Pennsylvania after defendant obtained employment with the Philadelphia school district. Eventually, Victor returned to New Jersey to reside with plaintiff. The parties remained separated for an aggregate thirteen years with neither party contributing spousal support to the other during this time.

On June 16, 2005, plaintiff, pro se, filed a complaint for divorce. On September 27, 2005, defendant filed an answer and counterclaim. On June 27, 2006, the court entered the FJD.

On appeal, plaintiff raises for our consideration the following points:

POINT I

THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AFFORDED THE RIGHT TO FULLY DEVELOP[] HIS CASE AS WERE THE DEFENDANT AND HER ATTORNEY.

POINT II

PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION MATTER.

POINT III

PARTIES['] MINOR CHILD RIGHTS AND INTEREST WERE ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.