On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Probate Part, Morris County, Docket No. F6-102.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted January 26, 2010
Before Judges Skillman and Gilroy.
Appellant Mary B. Connally appeals from the February 19, 2009 order that denied her motion for reconsideration of the two December 11, 2008 orders authorizing the sale of certain residential property in Mountain Lakes (the property) and denying her cross-motion seeking to compel a transfer of the property to her father's testamentary trust. We affirm.
On December 28, 1992, appellant Mary B. Connally's father conveyed the property to appellant and R.B. Appellant's father died on January 16, 1993. On October 4, 1994, appellant conveyed all her right, title and interest in the property to R.B. for $257,500.
In October 2005, R.B. entered into a contract to sell the property to DiMarco Holdings, LLC, for $500,000. For reasons unknown, the parties did not proceed immediately to close title. On February 15, 2006, DiMarco Holdings filed an action for specific performance of the contract for sale of the property.
On May 29, 2008, the trial court entered an order adjudicating R.B. a mentally incapacitated person and appointed Igor I. Sikorsky, Esq., as the Guardian of his person and property. On October 8, 2008, Sikorsky filed an action in the Chancery Division, Probate Part, seeking authorization to sell the property to DiMarco Holdings in accordance with the terms of the contract. Appellant filed a cross-motion seeking to void the transfer of the property from herself to R.B., and to compel a transfer of the property to her father's testamentary trust.
On December 11, 2008, Judge Langlois entered two orders, approving the sale of the property and denying appellant's cross-motion. On January 2, 2009, appellant filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the two December 11, 2008 orders. On February 19, 2009, Judge Langlois entered an order supported by an oral decision denying the motion. It is from this order that appellant appeals.
On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in authorizing the sale of the property to DiMarco Holdings.
We have considered appellant's argument in light of the record and applicable law. We conclude that the argument is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Langlois in her oral decision of February 19, 2009. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).