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.

Bansal v. Bansal

October 22, 2008

JANE BANSAL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ASHWANI BANSAL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hunterdon County, Docket No. FM-10-315-04 (A-0242-06T3 and A-0598-06T3); Law Division, Hunterdon County, Docket No. L-151-05 (A-0430-06T3).

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted September 8, 2008

Before Judges Lisa and Sapp-Peterson.

These are back-to-back appeals consolidated for purposes of this opinion. They arise out of a dissolution action in the Chancery Division, Family Part, and from a civil action in the Law Division for domestic torts that the Family Part judge severed from the dissolution action. Pro se plaintiff, Jane Bansal, appeals from the July 26, 2006 order of the Family Part denying her motion for relief from the final judgment of divorce (FJOD) entered on June 10, 2005, and the court's subsequent August 14, 2006 order denying her motion to enforce litigant's rights. From the Law Division action, plaintiff appeals the February 28, 2006 order granting defendant, Ashwani Bansal, partial summary judgment, and the May 10, 2006 order denying reconsideration, denying a discovery extension, and denying plaintiff's motion to disqualify the motion judge. Finally, plaintiff appeals from the August 25, 2006 order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

On appeal, plaintiff raises the following points for our consideration under A-0242-06T3:

POINT I

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 4:50-1 WAS TIMELY FILED AS REQUIRED BY RULE 4:50-2.

A. JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE ON FILE WITH COURT AND DEFENDANT SUBMITTED A COPY IN HIS RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS.

POINT II

GUIDED BY PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE, INTENT OF MOTION IS TO REOPEN JUDGMENT TO CURE OBJECTIVE FACTUAL MISTAKES AND OMISSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN REVEALED OVER THE PAST YEAR TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTENT OF TRIAL JUDGE, TO RESOLVE AMBIGUITIES, AND TO EXPUNGE VOID COMMENTS OUTSIDE OF JURISDICTION.

A. THE CONTINUED FAILURE AND REFUSAL OF THE DEFENDANT AND HIS FORMER EMPLOYER TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DECISION AND THE JUDGMENT WARRANTS THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND JUSTIFIES THE TIME OF FILING THE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT.

B. WHAT RULE 4:50-1 MEANS TO PLAINTIFF AND HER RELIANCE ON IT FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT.

C. NOT CORRECTING "OBJECTIVE" FACTUAL MISTAKES, OMISSIONS, AND AMBIGUITIES CONSTITUTES A MANIFEST ERROR NOT OPEN TO CONTROVERSY AND IS [A] PROPER SUBJECT FOR RELIEF UNDER RULE 4:50-1(a) and 1:13-1.

D. ORDER TO SEVER FORMALLY TERMINATED THE FAMILY COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER THE TORT CLAIMS SO ANY COMMENTS IN THE JUDGMENT REGARDING THESE TORT CLAIMS ARE INVALID AND VOID FOR ALL PURPOSES.

POINT III

THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIES THE FILING OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT THEREIN.

A. EXERCISE OF DISCRETION REQUIRES CONSCIENTIOUS JUDGMENT, DIRECTED BY LAW AND REASON, AND LOOKING TO A JUST RESULT.

B. PLAINTIFF DENIED FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD: REQUEST FOR EXPANDED TIME TO GIVE FULL EXPRESSION TO FACTUAL ISSUES WAS DENIED, 10-MINUTE TIME LIMIT IMPOSED ON PLAINTIFF WAS AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY.

POINT IV

ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATION TO JUDGMENT NEEDED TO OVERCOME MISTAKES, OMISSIONS, AND AMBIGUITIES IN ORDER TO GIVE FULL EXPRESSION TO INTENT OF JUDGMENT AND TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS AND INTERESTS.

A. RULE 1:13-1 AND FEDERAL RULE 60(a) ALSO APPLY TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN PLAINTIFF'S MOTION.

B. THE CONTINUED FAILURE AND REFUSAL OF THE DEFENDANT AND HIS FORMER EMPLOYER TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DECISION AND THE JUDGMENT WARRANTS THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND JUSTIFIES THE TIME OF FILING THE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT.

1. BONUSES.

C. INTENTIONAL INCONSISTENT POSITIONS BARRED BY JUDICIAL EXTOPPEL.

2. LONG[-]TERM INCENTIVE COMPENSATION AWARDS.

3. GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE.

4. HOUSE REPAIR BILL.

5. ANNUAL BONUS FOR 2003 AND 2004.

6. COLLEGE EXPENSES.

7. COUNSEL FEES.

8. SAVINGS ACCOUNT.

9. LIFE INSURANCE.

10. MEDICAL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT (FRAUD).

POINT V

A COURT ORDER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IS BINDING ON THE COURT ITSELF AND ON THE PARTIES, IS A MANDATORY DIRECTIVE TO COMPLY, AND IS ENFORCEABLE BY SANCTIONS.

A. FULL FACTS AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WITHHELD BY PLAINTIFF IN DIVORCE TRIAL DUE TO ORDER TO SEVER WHICH RESULTED IN JUDICIAL COMMENTS IN THE DECISION THAT WERE FACTUALLY MISTAKEN, INCONSISTENT, AND LEGALLY VOID.

POINT VI

AN ORDER RENDERED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS VOID FOR ALL PURPOSES, IS OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT, AND CAN BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED, INCLUDING UNDER RULE 4:50-1(d).

11. ORDER TO SEVER AND MONEY DIVERTED TO INDIA: JUDGE'S VOID COMMENTS CONTRADICTORY. DEFENDANT'S KNOWINGLY UNDERSTATING AMOUNT OF MARITAL ASSETS DIVERTED TO INDIA IS AN ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST AND A PARTIAL RESTITUTION ONLY.

12. ORDER TO SEVER: "FLUCTUATIONS IN VALUE OF PORTFOLIO" PERTAINS ONLY TO THE NON-MARITAL UTMA ACCOUNTS AND ISSUES OF CUSTODIANSHIP AND DATE OF VALUATION, NOT TO FRAUD OR FINANCIAL DISHONESTY.

13. ORDER TO SEVER AND CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT: JUDGE'S OPINION BASED ON DEFENDANT'S MISLEADING AND INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND A LACK OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.

14. ORDER TO SEVER AND MARGIN DEBT LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (COUNTS VI AND VIII).

A. JUDGE FAILED TO COMPREHEND THE LEGAL EFFECT OF HIS OWN ORDER TO SEVER ON THE TERMINATION OF COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER THE TORT CLAIMS AND ON PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. FACTUALLY MISTAKEN AND VOID JUDICIAL COMMENTS MUST BE DELETED FROM THE DECISION AND JUDGMENT.

B. IF RELIEF IS AVAILABLE UNDER ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE RULES, OBJECT OF COURT IS TO REACH A JUST AND FAIR RESULT REGARDLESS OF WORDING OF MOTION.

C. FEDERAL RULE 60(b): NO TIME LIMIT ON AN ATTACK ON A JUDGMENT AS VOID.

D. JUDGE HAS A DUTY TO ANNUL VOID COMMENTS IN DECISION AND JUDGMENT.

POINT VII

A VOID ORDER WILL NOT SUPPORT RIGHTS, REMEDIES, OR PROCEEDINGS PREDICATED ON IT.

A. IMPROPER RELIANCE OF LAW DIVISION ON VOID COMMENTS OF JUDGE CONTRARY TO CONTROLLING NEW JERSEY LAW.

Under A-0430-06T3, plaintiff raises the following points for our consideration:

POINT I

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IN THE DIVORCE TRIAL NOR IN THE ASSAULT TRIAL.

A. PARTY AGAINST WHOM COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IS INVOKED MUST BE FULLY REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IN THE PRIOR ACTION.

POINT II

FAMILY COURT'S ORDER TO SEVER TERMINATED ITS JURISDICTION OVER THE TORT CLAIMS AND THEIR ISSUES AND TRANSFERRED TO THE LAW DIVISION "ORIGINAL JURISDICTION" OVER THEM.

A. PLAIN AND HARMFUL ERRORS RESULTED WHEN FAMILY COURT JUDGE AND TWO LAW DIVISION JUDGES FAILED TO COMPREHEND THE LEGALLY BINDING EFFECT OF THE ORDER TO SEVER[] TERMINATION OF THE FAMILY COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER THE TORT CLAIMS.

B. EXERCISE OF DISCRETION REQUIRES CONSCIENTIOUS JUDGMENT, DIRECTED BY LAW AND REASON, AND LOOKING TO A JUST RESULT.

POINT III

A COURT ORDER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IS BINDING ON THE COURT ITSELF AND ON THE PARTIES, IS A MANDATORY DIRECTIVE TO COMPLY, AND IS ENFORCEABLE BY SANCTIONS.

POINT IV

FULL FACTS AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WITHHELD BY PLAINTIFF IN DIVORCE TRIAL DUE TO ORDER TO SEVER.

POINT V

JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL IS BINDING ON DEFENDANT AS PERSON WHO WAS FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR FINANCIAL DECISIONS AND LOSSES.

A. MULTITUDE OF MISTAKEN CONCLUSIONS IN DECISION.

POINT VI

ISSUES LITIGATED IN THE DIVORCE TRIAL ARE NOT IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES IN THE SEVERED TORT CLAIMS IN V, VI, AND VIII.

A. GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACTS REMAIN.

B. "FLUCTUATIONS IN VALUE OF PORTFOLIO" PERTAINED ONLY TO THE NON-MARITAL UTMA ACCOUNTS AND ISSUES OF CUSTODIANSHIP AND DATE OF VALUATION AND NOT TO COUNTS VI OR VIII.

C. NO FACT[-]FINDINGS AS TO COUNT V.

POINT VII

NO FAIR AND FULL LITIGATION OF SEVERED TORT CLAIMS OF COUNT VI, FRAUD[,] AND COUNT VIII, GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IN THE DIVORCE TRIAL.

A. ORDER TO SEVER AND MONEY DIVERTED TO INDIA: JUDGE'S VOID COMMENTS CONTRADICTORY. DEFENDANT'S KNOWINGLY UNDERSTATING AMOUNT OF MARITAL ASSETS DIVERTED TO INDIA IS AN ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST AND A PARTIAL RESTITUTION ONLY (COUNT VI).

B. ORDER TO SEVER AND MARGIN DEBT: LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (COUNTS VI AND VIII).

POINT VIII

INVALID COMMENTS IN THE FAMILY COURT'S DECISION WERE INCONSISTENT, LEGALLY VOID, AND FACTUALLY MISTAKEN DUE TO THE DEFENDANT'S KNOWINGLY MISLEADING TESTIMONY, AND SUBSTANTIALLY PREJUDICED PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN THE LAW DIVISION.

POINT IX

IT IS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS TO COLLATERALLY ESTOP A PARTY WHO HAS NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ON THEIR CLAIMS.

POINT X

AN ORDER RENDERED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS VOID FOR ALL PURPOSES, IS OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT, AND CAN BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED.

A. A JUDGMENT VOID FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION HAS NO FORCE AS RES JUDICATA.

B. FEDERAL RULE 60(b): NO TIME LIMIT ON AN ATTACK ON A JUDGMENT AS VOID.

POINT XI

A VOID ORDER WILL NOT SUPPORT RIGHTS, REMEDIES, OR PROCEEDINGS PREDICATED ON IT.

A. A JUDGMENT VOID ON ITS FACE IS A NULLITY AND CAN BE NEITHER A BASIS NOR EVIDENCE OF ANY RIGHT WHATEVER AS ALL ACTS PERFORMED UNDER IT ARE VOID.

POINT XII

IN LAW DIVISION, NO EVIDENCE EXISTED TO SUPPORT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE VOID COMMENTS IN FAMILY COURT'S DECISION WERE A NULLITY AND THUS A "LEGALLY INVALID" BASIS ON WHICH TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF RES JUDICATA.

A. DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROVING ISSUE PRECLUSION SINCE NO EVIDENCE OF THE "RECORD" OF THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS WAS PROVIDED.

B. DEFENDANT DID NOT DISPUTE THE CORRECTNESS OR CONTROLLING APPLICABILITY OF FUNDAMENTAL NJ LAW.

POINT XIII

SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF THE CREDIBILITY OF ...


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.