On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-1829-04F.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted August 27, 2008
Before Judges A. A. Rodríguez and C. L. Miniman.
Defendant Elena Severinova appeals from the August 22, 2007 post-divorce judgment order by the Family Part. We affirm.
The order, in its dispositive language, states as follows:
ORDERED that defendant's request to require the plaintiff to remove his belongings from her home is denied without prejudice. Since the plaintiff has failed to claim the items, the defendant may remove the items at the plaintiff's expense, or may destroy the items; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall remove the defendant's name from his dental insurance coverage. In the event plaintiff fails to remove same within fifteen (15) days of the date hereof, the defendant is hereby granted a limited power-of-attorney to sign the plaintiff's name to remove herself from his dental coverage; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have their motor vehicles appraised at David Michael Dealership, Freehold, New Jersey, and comply with Paragraph 20, Page 5, of the Amended Dual Judgment of Divorce within thirty (30) days of the date hereof; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall immediately retain Troyan to equalize their pensions with the parties being responsible equally for the cost of same pursuant to Paragraph 14 of the Dual Judgment of Divorce; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the defendant may move for sanctions and other penalties[.]
In connection with this order, Judge Michael A. Toto issued a written opinion on December 6, 2007 as follows:
Defendant filed a motion returnable August 22, 2007 seeking various forms of relief, including enforcement of provisions of the Judgment of Divorce entered December 6, 2005. The Court entered an Order of August 22, 2007, granting most of the relief sought by the defendant. The defendant requested an Order compelling the plaintiff to return to the prior marital home to retrieve certain personal property. This request was made approximately 1 1/2 years after the Judgment of Divorce was entered.
Paragraph 21 of the Judgment of Divorce dated December 6, 2005, provided, "Wife shall retain the furniture and furnishings of the marital home. Husband may remove his bike, ski set, shoes and boots, snowboard/boots, and personal items including his books and clothes." The Judgment of Divorce did not provide that the husband shall remove or was compelled to remove but provided that he may remove those items. The use of the word "may" in Paragraph 21 indicates it was the Husband/Plaintiff's option to remove said personalty. The same paragraph specifically provides that the Wife "shall" retain the furniture and furnishings of the marital home. The use of the word "may" was a factor in the Court ...