On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FM-07-549-94.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued September 17, 2007
Before Judges Lintner, Graves and Sabatino.
The parties in this divorce action were married on May 15, 1972. They have two sons: Jeffrey is now twenty-three years old, and Gregory is now twenty-one years of age. A final judgment of divorce (JOD) was signed on October 1, 1997, and an amended final judgment of divorce (AJOD) was signed on January 9, 1998. We have reviewed this case on two prior occasions.*fn1 In our last decision, which remanded several issues to the Family Part, we noted "this divorce case that began in 1993 . . . has been ceaseless and perpetual since that time." State v. Schvey, No. A-6316-02 (App. Div. June 6, 2005) (slip op. at 2).
According to plaintiff, the matter was previously remanded because the motion judge made "unsupported, unexplained decision[s] without the benefit of any documentation," and the same mistakes were repeated during the remand proceedings: "In the present 'hearing' [the] lower court does the same thing. Cross-examination was not even permitted." In addition, plaintiff presents the following arguments:
THE LOWER COURT'S REFUSAL TO AWARD APPELLANT EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION FOR THE ROYAL JEFFGREG PROPERTY (1 FOURTH ST. SOUTH ORANGE, N.J.) VIOLATED THE AMENDED DUAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE, VIOLATES EQUITABLE CONCEPTS OF LAW AND WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS.
THE LOWER COURT'S ORDER AS TO PHOENIX LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE AMENDED JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE, IS NOT EQUITABLE, AND WAS BASED ON MISTAKES. FURTHER THE COURT VIOLATED THE AMENDED JUDGMENT BY ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT THAT RESPONDENT MAINTAIN LIFE INSURANCE.
THE COURT ERRED AND VIOLATED THE AMENDED DUAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE IN ITS ORDER OF MARCH 24, 2006 AS DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS WHICH WERE SPECIFICALLY TO BE DIVIDED UNDER THE AMENDED DUAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE BY ADDING WORDS "PROVIDING THAT SAID ACCOUNT(S) EXIST.["]
THE COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR A VALID BASIS TO DENY APPELLANT'S EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE AZTECH 401 K PLAN, BEARER BONDS, THE SECOND CHASE IRA ACCOUNT AND [ELIMINATE] DISTRIBUTION OF ANY ADDITIONAL SUCH RETIREMENT PLANS.
THE COURT ORDER UNEQUALLY DIVIDED TWO OF THE RETIREMENT FUNDS LISTED IN PARAGRAPH 37 OF THE AMENDED DUAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WHICH CALL FOR AN EQUAL DISTRIBUTION AND WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF ACCOUNT [DOCUMENTATION] AND ONLY RESPONDENT'S BARE ASSERTIONS.
THE CHANCERY DIVISION, FAMILY PART, LOWER COURT INTERFERED WITH THE COLLECTION OF LAW DIVISION JUDGMENT RESULTING IN REDUCING PLAINTIFF'S EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION BY $1,000,000 OVER AND ABOVE THE BALANCE OF THE DIVORCE SETTLEMENT PLAINTIFF HAS NOT RECEIVED AND SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF ...