November 14, 2008
TEHMINA ALI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
SHAUKAT ALI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Sussex County, FM-19-307-99.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued October 29, 2008
Before Judges Rodríguez and Payne.
Defendant Shaukat Ali appeals from the May 15, 2007 post- divorce judgment order, which provides:
1. Defendant's application to emancipate the parties' daughter, Anila Ali, is denied as she is attending college.
2. At the time of the Final Judgment of Divorce the plaintiff was awarded counsel fees in the amount of $36,352, less a credit for payment of $2,776.25; thus equaling $33,576. Subsequent counsel fees were awarded in this case, specifically:
a. Counsel fee award from 7/8/03 totaling $2,207.00.
b. Counsel fee award from 4/23/04 totaling $2,862.75.
c. Appellate Division Counsel fee award from 11/12/03 totaling $5,055.00.
d. Supreme Court Counsel fee award from 6/2/04 totaling $1,336.25.
A later credit was given to the defendant in the amount of $26,361. This credit represented monies that were paid from the defendant to the plaintiff out of the defendant's Federal Thrift Savings Plan; a retirement system created for Federal employees. The Federal Thrift Savings Plan Distribution of Proceeds sent a United States Treasury Check to the plaintiff in this exact amount, Check No. 3091 08131351.
3. The current amount of counsel fees owed to David B. Wasserman, Esq., is $27,369.19. This is calculated as follows:
a. $19,696.88 as of Judge Farber's Orders of 11/12/04 and 11/23/04, which represents the money owed to Mr. Wasserman after the credit of $26,361, plus the counsel fee awards specified in 2(a)-(d) (interest also calculated).
b. $3,602.50 as of the Court's Order of 5/16/05.
c. $750.00 as of the Court's Order of 10/04/05.
d. $2,050.00 as of the Court's Order of 12/14/05.
e. $769.81 as of the Court's Order of 12/19/05.
f. $500.00 as of the Court's Order of 2/17/06.
4. The above counsel fees equal a total amount of $27,369.19. This amount is to be paid, in full, to Mr. Wasserman within 30 days.
On appeal, defendant raises the following questions:
I. Does fraud on court occurs? Where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense?
II. Is there a civil wrong, should there be a remedy?
III. Does old Rule of NJ Civil procedure 3:60-2 grant relief, when one party committed perjury in her testimony at the courthouse?
IV. Willfully false testimony of a witness may in some circumstances justify setting aside a verdict or judgment. However, the party seeking relief on this ground must show by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence that the perjured testimony warrants disturbance of a final judgment, was willfully and purposely falsely given, and was material to the issue tried and not merely cumulative but probably controlled the result. Additionally, the falsity must not have been discoverable by reasonable diligence prior to trial. Does Court Rule 4:50-1f grant relief of judgment?
V. Does a party who receives diverted funds require to provide restitution whose funds were stolen?
VI. Does New Jersey State trial court transfer funds for attorney fee from thrift savings plan to attorney fee?
VII. Does a court reward an attorney who willfully violated court order to disclose attorney fee?
VIII. Does misappropriation of client funds is crime under N.J.S.A. 2C:20-9 and violation of NJ Court Rules of professional conduct DR 9-102?
IX. Does a suite can be brought against a private citizen if conspiracy existed between private individual and one who acted under the color of state law?
X. Does Appellate Court express dismay that child support issue raised on September 22, 2006 were never solved until present time?
XI. Does trial court grant tuition fee of Anila Ali, which is not legitimate and reasonable?
XII. Does trial court award a tuition fee based on a certificate of March 15, 2006 of attorney is false and misleading and violation of court rule 4:42-9?
XIII. Does a trial court award fee to a client a law firm committed common in law fraud upon court?
XIV. Does trial court not considering loss of value of thrift savings plan awarded amount to plaintiff?
We are not persuaded by any of these issues, and after a careful review against the relevant record, we conclude that these arguments are without merit and do not warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Defendant does not make specific, coherent arguments grounded in the law or related to the record.
In reaching this decision, we agree with Judge Edward V. Gannon's statement of reasons. He wrote that this appeal is:
the latest in a long line of frivolous motions and appeals seeking to revisit issues determined by the original trial judge and in subsequent motions . . . .
Sadly, Mr. Ali has been blinded by the economic impact of his divorce which has destroyed his relationship with his children. He has engaged in a destructive pattern of behavior which has left him repeatedly lying about assets and his present ability to pay financial obligations. The Court is satisfied that the parties' daughter, Anila Ali, is not yet emancipated. She is currently attending college, and in need of defendant's financial support.
We concur in this assessment.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.