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.

Rhody v. Rhody

November 13, 2007

KATHLEEN L. RHODY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN F. RHODY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, Docket No. FM-13-381-02C.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 15, 2007

Before Judges Graves and Alvarez.

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Kathleen Rhody appeals from two orders; an order dated October 20, 2006, denying her motion to change venue, and a subsequent order dated November 16, 2006, denying her motion to vacate the terms of the judgment of divorce (JOD) relating to "equitable distribution, alimony, child support and attorney's fees and costs and all post[-]judgment [o]rders related to said issues." After reviewing the record and the applicable law in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

Plaintiff and defendant, John Rhody, were married on May 16, 1987. They have two children----a daughter who is now nineteen years old, and a son who is seventeen. Plaintiff filed her complaint for divorce in Monmouth County. After their divorce trial began in June 2004, the parties successfully resolved their differences in mediation, and their JOD, dated September 23, 2004, incorporated a twenty-four-page property settlement agreement (PSA). As noted on the second page of their PSA, the parties "each had independent advice of counsel of their own choosing," and they entered into the PSA "voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the income and property of each other."

On appeal, plaintiff presents the following issues:

POINT I

DID THE COURT ERR IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE FROM MONMOUTH COUNTY?

POINT II

DID THE COURT ERR IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE THE OPERATIONAL PROVISIONS OF EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, ALIMONY, CHILD SUPPORT, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS BASED UPON THE FRAUD COMMITTED BY DEFENDANT?

In a certification dated September 8, 2006, submitted in support of her motion to change venue "for all subsequent proceedings," plaintiff certified:

31. I intend to file a motion for post-judgment relief and the relief sought is related to the former marital residence, defendant's income and other assets.

32. Based upon the foregoing, I have a substantial doubt that a fair and impartial hearing can be had if my subsequent ...


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.