On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-1079-02D.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted September 19, 2007
Before Judges Parker and R. B. Coleman.
Plaintiff Frank Salamoni appeals from an order entered on October 20, 2006 denying his application for a stay of an arrest warrant to be issued in the event he failed to make a lump sum child support payment ordered by the court on September 29, 2006.
The background leading to this appeal is summarized as follows. A comprehensive judgment of divorce was entered on August 21, 2003 after a trial. The judgment addressed custody and parenting time, child support, equitable distribution, health and life insurance, allocation of college expenses, allocation of tax deductions and other tax issues.
Plaintiff has been disputing the calculation of his support payments with the Probation Department since before the judgment of divorce was entered. In July 2003, the trial court entered an order requiring "Probation to provide a copy of all information held in [p]laintiff's file . . . within thirty (30) days." In an order entered on September 26, 2003, the court required probation "to comply with the May 23, 2003 [o]rder to recalculate child support and arrears, and to provide the source of the numbers they use to make this re-calculation." On November 21, 2003, the court ordered the Probation Department "to supply Plaintiff with the complete Probation file . . . specifically to provide all information for . . . the months of April 2003 - October 2003." That same order further required the Probation Department "to credit Plaintiff's account in the amount of $498 for the month of January 2002 support payments."
In an order entered on April 16, 2004, the Probation Department was again ordered "to supply Plaintiff with the complete Probation file . . . specifically to provide all the information for . . . the months of April 2003 to October 2003" and "to recalculate child support and arrears, and to provide the source of the numbers they use to make this re-calculation and their methodology."
On April 1, 2005, the court entered an order requiring Probation "to supply the Plaintiff with requested items." On November 29, 2005, yet another order was entered staying the Probation Department's wage garnishment of plaintiff's income "pending final resolution of the September 15, 2005 [o]rder."
On September 28, 2006, plaintiff had a hearing before a Probation Department hearing officer, during which plaintiff claimed that the Probation Department records and audit were incorrect and that he had proof of payments not credited to him. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer determined that $1,000 in arrears was due and owing. The hearing officer ordered that the $1,000 payment be made within one week or a bench warrant would issue.
Plaintiff appealed the hearing officer's determination to the Superior Court and, on September 29, 2006 he appeared in the Family Part, claiming that the arrears calculated by the Probation Department were wrong, that he had overpaid and that money was due to him. During the Superior Court hearing, a representative of the Probation Department agreed to meet with plaintiff the following week to review all of plaintiff's documentation and determine whether the Probation Department audit was correct. The trial court told plaintiff that this was his opportunity to present what he wanted to the Probation Department. The trial court also modified the Probation Department order so that plaintiff would have the opportunity to present his arguments before an arrest warrant could be issued.
Unfortunately, we have not been provided with a transcript of the meeting and there is no indication in the record that the meeting was recorded. Defendant was apparently not present at the meeting and her pro se brief makes no representations respecting the meeting. Consequently, we are at a loss to determine what occurred at the meeting, after which the October 20, 2006 order, which is subject to this appeal was entered.
During the course of our considering this appeal, we became aware that a plenary hearing was conducted on December 5, 2006.*fn1
Since it was likely that this plenary hearing addressed the issues raised in this appeal, we requested a copy of the transcript. Plaintiff objected but finally provided the transcript on November 13, 2007, accompanied by a letter brief continuing his objection to providing the transcript and arguing that the December ...