Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Paul Chrysanthopoulos v. Sara Chrysanthopoulos

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


July 6, 2011

PAUL CHRYSANTHOPOULOS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
SARA CHRYSANTHOPOULOS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-001976-08E.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted June 1, 2011

Before Judges Wefing and Koblitz.

Defendant appeals from a post-judgment matrimonial order. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

The parties were divorced after nearly thirty years of marriage. They have one child, who is emancipated. During the course of their marriage, they owned and operated V.A. Designs, Inc. ("VA"). As part of the divorce proceedings, the trial court appointed Andrew Hodulik as the special fiscal agent for VA, making him the sole signatory on VA's corporate account and solely responsible for approving the payment of bills. The judgment of divorce continued Hodulik in the role of fiscal agent for VA and provided that he would "continue to perform his duties" as provided in the order initially appointing him to that role.

VA was undergoing financial strains, and one of Hodulik's decisions as fiscal agent was to suspend salary payments to both parties. In February 2010, defendant filed a post-judgment motion seeking various forms of relief, including permission to receive a salary from VA because of her need for funds. The trial court denied her motion, and this appeal followed.

Defendant's contention on appeal is that the trial court should have conducted a plenary hearing before ruling on her motion.

We disagree.

The trial court had before it the report of the fiscal agent which clearly set forth the limited funds available to VA. As the trial court pointed out to defendant, the fact that VA was paying its employees was not a justification to pay a salary to defendant, a partial owner of the business. Defendant has failed to demonstrate on appeal that there was a material question of fact requiring a plenary hearing.

The order under review is affirmed.

20110706

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.