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.

Anita v. Czuchnicki

November 6, 2009

ANITA CZUCHNICKI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL CZUCHNICKI, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
ANITA CZUCHNICKI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL CZUCHNICKI, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
ANITA CZUCHNICKI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
MICHAEL CZUCHNICKI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FM-14-095-02.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 28, 2009

Before Judges Axelrad and Fisher.

This is the second time the parties have been before us. In a prior appeal from the judgment of divorce, entered after a trial, we affirmed in all respects except we remanded for clarification about the alimony awarded in favor of plaintiff Anita Czuchnicki. Czuchnicki v. Czuchnicki, No. A-6899-03T3 (App. Div. July 26, 2006) (slip op. at 8-10). In the proceedings that followed, the trial judge dispelled the confusion about the alimony award and, in disposing of additional motions, awarded certain credits. The remand proceedings and the rulings regarding the credits generated the filing of two notices of appeal by plaintiff and one by defendant Michael Czuchnicki. We find no merit in plaintiff's appeals, but agree, in ruling on defendant's appeal, that the judge was mistaken with regard to the manner of payment of the net credit due defendant.

The parties were married for nearly thirty years when plaintiff filed this action for divorce in 2001. One child was born of the marriage. Following a contentious trial, a judgment of divorce was entered on June 29, 2004.

Plaintiff appealed and defendant cross-appealed. They raised numerous issues concerning alimony, child support, college expenses, equitable distribution, responsibility for outstanding loans, and counsel fees. We found all the parties' arguments without merit with one exception. We concluded, based on some of the comments in the judge's decision, that it was not clear whether the obligation imposed on defendant required that he pay plaintiff ...


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.