On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FM-14-1203-01.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Wefing, Parker and LeWinn.
In these two appeals, the Garfinkels continue their litigation which began on March 27, 2001 when plaintiff Garfinkel (Peter) filed the complaint for divorce. Defendant Garfinkel (Lori) filed a counterclaim alleging transmission of sexual disease; negligent infliction of emotional distress; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and wiretapping. The parties engaged in an extremely litigious pendente lite period. A judgment of divorce was granted on June 28, 2004 after a lengthy trial. The judgment was appealed and in a decision rendered on June 8, 2006, we affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part for reconsideration of certain issues. Garfinkel v. Garfinkel, No. A-4500-03T2 (App. Div. June 8, 2006).
Lori moved to enforce her rights to childcare payments and on August 18, 2006, Judge Stephan Hansbury entered an order finding Peter in arrears for childcare payments in the amount of $3,631.14 and ordered him to pay $945 per month. This motion was unopposed.
Peter thereafter moved for reconsideration of the August 18, 2006 order, claiming he had not been served with Lori's motion. On October 23, 2006, Judge Hansbury entered an order rescinding the August 18, 2006 order as of September 21, 2006. Peter was still required to pay $945 for the month of August 18 to September 21, 2006. Notwithstanding rescission of the August 18 order, a warrant was issued for Peter's arrest for non-payment of childcare arrears.
After the remand hearing, on December 20, 2006, Judge Hansbury entered an amended dual judgment of divorce specifically addressing the issues we had directed for reconsideration.
The parties continued their post-judgment litigation and in an order entered on February 7, 2007, Judge Hansbury required Peter to pay $945 in childcare arrears but rescinded the warrant for his arrest. In his oral decision, Judge Hansbury stated:
[The] August 18th order, I intended to rescind everything. Wipe out arrears, remove the nine-forty-five, everything . . . . Now because [Peter] . . . put himself in this position I thought it was fair that we continue the nine-forty-five for the period of August 18th to September 21, but I removed all the arrears. That's what I intended to so.
Now in terms of any application today by [Lori] to impose any order upon [Peter] to pay medical insurance or childcare, there's not enough information here, there's no evidence of any judgment or order upon which -- establishing the legal right presented in the papers and they have to be presented in the papers so that application is denied.
In Docket No. A-3844-06T3, Lori appeals from the February 7, 2007 order and argues that the trial court erred in failing to consider the June 28, 2004 supplemental judgment of divorce, which required defendant to pay sixty percent of childcare costs approved by the parties. Peter maintains, however, that the trial court correctly rescinded the April 18, 2006 order because Lori failed to comply with the terms of the divorce, which required her to contact him about daycare or send daycare proposals to him in writing.
We have carefully considered the arguments of the parties on this appeal in light of the record and the applicable law. We are satisfied that Lori's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant further consideration in a written opinion. We affirm Judge Hansbury's order of February 7, 2007 substantially for the reasons stated in his oral decision rendered on the record of that date. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Judge ...