On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, Docket No. FM-03-1379-09.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Grall and Skillman.
Plaintiff Christina M. Rivera appeals from a post-judgment order entered in a divorce case on defendant Hector Corrales' motion and her cross-motion. Paragraph 3 of the order, which was entered on March 25, 2011, is the subject of this appeal. It directs plaintiff to turn over for destruction all copies of a sexually explicit video, which depicts defendant's current wife, that were in her possession. On a prior motion, the court had issued an order allowing plaintiff to keep the videos for use in defending herself against criminal charges and otherwise prohibiting the parties from distributing or displaying the videos. Paragraph 3 of the March 25 order addresses defendant's motion to enforce the prohibition against dissemination.
At the motion hearing, the court took the parties' testimony. Defendant had evidence that a video of his wife had been displayed on the internet, but apart from plaintiff's possession of a copy, he had no evidence that she was responsible. Plaintiff denied any role in the dissemination. Although the court concluded that plaintiff had "no legitimate reason to be in possession of those videos," the court further found that the identity of the person responsible "has yet to be proven."
On appeal plaintiff does not claim that the court erred in ordering her to turn in all copies of the videos in her possession. She objects to a sentence in paragraph 3 that states, "The [c]court finds that [p]laintiff published the explicit videos in her possession on pornographic websites in violation of the [c]court's December 17, 2010 order."
Appeals are taken from orders, not decisions. Do-Wop Corp. v. City of Rahway, 168 N.J. 191, 199 (2001). Nevertheless, in this case paragraph 3 includes a sentence stating a factual finding that not only lacks support in the record, but is also inconsistent with the finding the court made at the motion hearing held several weeks before the March 25, 2011 order was entered. Because the unsupported finding quoted above could potentially be used against plaintiff in separate litigation, we remand and direct the trial court to issue an amended order that eliminates the sentence at issue.
Affirmed, but remanded for issuance of an amended order.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...