Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ali v. Ali


April 27, 2009


On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Sussex County, Docket No. FM-19-307-1999.

Per curiam.


Argued January 28, 2009

Before Judges A. A. Rodríguez and Payne.

Defendant, Shaukat Ali, appeals from an order of a judge of the Family Part filed on June 1, 2007. In a proposed form of order submitted by defendant in connection with the motion that resulted in the June 1 order, defendant sought the following findings and related relief:

1. It is ordered that Mr. Wasserman did not respond to Accountant report. Therefore complaint filed by Wasserman and Schachman is dismissed with prejudice.

2. It is ordered that Certified Accountant Karen Garland, has provided professional services in this matter of amount _______, and shall be paid by Wasserman and Schachman firm and plaintiff within _______ days.

The motion judge denied the relief sought by defendant, giving as his reason the following statement: "All issues resolved at plenary hearing. See order dated 5/15/07."

On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments, which we list verbatim:

Issue No 1:

Does Trial Court dismayed on issue of child support which is not Decided raised in September 2006 until present? It is a violation of Accardi v. Accardi, 369 N.J. Super. 75 848 A.2d 44; 2004

Issue No 2:

Does divorced party request to modify alimony and support orders should have been denied? It is a violation of Brown v. Brown, 348 N.J. Super. 466, 792 A.2d 463, 2002

Issue No 3:

Does court should consider marital liabilities as well as marital assets when awarding Equitable Distribution? It is a violation of Brown v. Brown, 348 N.J. Super. 466, 792 A.2d 463, 2002

Issue No 4:

Once one party presented evidence of the amount of over payment the fee and its entitlement, then burden should be shifted other party to prove its defense that it did not receive fees and other moneys? It is a violation of Supreme court of New Jersey County of Essex v. Union National Bank, 186 N.J. 46 @(60) 2006

Issue no 5:

Does it not function of trial court to find the facts and state the law in every motion which it decides without jury either by written or oral opinion? It is a violation of court rule 1:7-4 Curtis v. Finnerman, 83 N.J. 563 (1980)

Issue No. 6:

Does a fraud on the 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? It is a violation of Triffin v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 394 N.J. Super. 237 (2007)

It is apparent that the arguments presented by defendant are largely unrelated to the June 1, 2007 order from which he has appealed.

As we understand the matter, plaintiff and defendant were divorced by order dated December 31, 2002. Since their divorce, defendant has filed multiple motions in the Family Part challenging various aspects of the judgment of divorce, including his court-ordered obligation to pay the counsel fees incurred by plaintiff. Adverse rulings in the Family Part have similarly led to multiple appeals to us. In this particular matter, defendant claims that a Family Part judge entered an order, filed on December 12, 2006, requiring David Wasserman, attorney for plaintiff, to file, by December 31, 2006, a complete accounting of all fees received by his firm in the matter and attach copies of all court orders directing the payment of fees. A hearing to finalize the amount of fees owed by defendant "and all remaining issues" was scheduled for January 5, 2007.

In compliance with the court's order, Wasserman wrote a letter to the judge, dated December 29, 2006, enclosing copies of six orders and stating that his partner, Schachman, had received payment of $2,500 in 2002 and that Wasserman had received $1,000 on an unspecified date. Defendant argues that this letter was misleading, in that Schachman had received $25,000, on January 16, 1999, from Janis Awan and Rizwan Mahmood, relatives of plaintiff. To prove Wasserman's statement incorrect, defendant filed a motion to compel Wasserman to respond "under certification." Additionally, defendant sought payment, by Wasserman and plaintiff, of the fees of his Certified Public Accountant. The denial of defendant's motion by the Family Part motion judge has resulted in the present appeal.

As we have stated, in denying defendant's motion, the judge determined that the issues raised had been resolved at a plenary hearing held on May 15, 2007. Defendant's subsequent motion appears to collaterally attack the result of that plenary hearing, which was the subject of a prior appeal to us. After considering defendant's arguments with respect to the May 15 order, we affirmed the judge's decision which, in relevant part, required defendant to pay attorney's fees to David B. Wasserman in the amount of $27,369.19 within thirty days and did not require reimbursement by plaintiff or Wasserman of the fees incurred by defendant's accountant. See Ali v. Ali, No. A-5013- 06T1 (App. Div. November 14, 2008). We find nothing in defendant's present arguments that would lead us to reach a different result here or to conclude that the judge erred in entering the June 1, 2007 order.



© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.