On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-2377-09-X. Pomper & Associates, attorneys for appellant (Janna M. Chernetz and Kourtney A. Borchers, on the briefs).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted June 23, 2011 - Decided
Before Judges Fisher andGrall.
Defendant Thomas Tully appeals the trial judge's determination, following a trial, of three issues in this divorce action, namely: alimony, equitable distribution and counsel fees. In light of the standard of review applicable to appeals of such determinations, we affirm.
Both parties were born in 1958. They married in 1999, his first, her second. Their marriage produced no children, but plaintiff Kathy Tully had custody of her two children -- twins born in 1992 -- from her first marriage, for which she received child support from her first husband. This divorce action was commenced in 2009; Kathy moved out of the marital home in 2010.
The parties stipulated to a resolution of many issues but a trial was required to resolve their disputes regarding alimony, the distribution of a baseball memorabilia collection, and counsel fees. A trial took place over the course of four days in June and July 2010. Judge Lisa M. Vignuolo rendered a dual judgment of divorce, as well as her written findings of fact and conclusions of law, on August 20, 2010.
Thomas appealed, presenting the following arguments for our consideration:
I. TRIAL JUDGE MISAPPLIED THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b) WHEN AWARDING PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT ALIMONY IN THE AMOUNT OF $900.00 PER WEEK FOR A TERM OF 10 YEARS.
A. The Trial Court Erred In Awarding Plaintiff/Respondent Alimony In The Amount Of $900 Per Week.
B. The Trial Court Erred In Awarding Limited Duration Alimony Of 10 Years.
II. TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT'S BASEBALL MEMORABILIA WAS SUBJECT TO EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION.
III. TRIAL JUDGE'S METHOD OF EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BASEBALL MEMORABILIA IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EXECUTE.
IV. TRIAL JUDGE MISAPPLIED THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN RULE 5:3-5(c) WHEN AWARDING PLAIN-TIFF/RESPONDENT COUNSEL FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000 ($7,500 MINUS A $2,500 ...