April 7, 2011
DIANE ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
RICHARD H. ROBINSON, III, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket No. FM-20-642-09.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted March 22, 2011
Before Judges Skillman and Roe.
Defendant, Richard H. Robinson, III, appeals from the final judgment of divorce denying his application for alimony and medical insurance. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Dupuis in her oral decision placed on the record December 7, 2009.
The scope of appellate review of the family part's fact finding is limited. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411 (1998). "We grant substantial deference to a trial court's findings of facts and conclusions of law, which will only be disturbed if they are 'manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence.'" Crespo v. Crespo, 395 N.J. Super. 190, 193-94 (App. Div. 2007)(quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). Additionally, "[b]ecause of the family courts' special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters, appellate court should accord deference to family court factfinding." Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 413. Settled principles provide that we will reverse only when our review unearths findings that "'are so wholly un-supportable as to result in a denial of justice[.]'" Colca v. Anson, 413 N.J. Super. 405, 413 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting Meshinsky v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc., 110 N.J. 464, 475 (1988)).
The record below contains a detailed analysis and application of findings to the statutory factors contained in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. Detailed credibility findings support the determination that defendant was not entitled to either alimony or contribution for medical insurance. The trial court's decision is supported by the substantial and credible evidence in the record.
Upon review of the record in light of the arguments defendant presents, we have concluded the issues raised on appeal are without sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.