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.

Christina M. Rivera v. Hector R. Corrales

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


April 16, 2012

CHRISTINA M. RIVERA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
HECTOR R. CORRALES, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, Docket No. FM-03-1379-09.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted March 19, 2012 -

Before Judges Grall and Skillman.

Plaintiff Christina M. Rivera appeals from a post-judgment order entered in a divorce case on defendant Hector R. Corrales' motion, filed on April 21, 2011, and her cross-motion, filed on May 17, 2011. The order was entered on May 27, 2011, and we affirm.

Plaintiff raises two issues for our consideration. We find them both to be without sufficient merit to warrant more than a brief discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

First, plaintiff contends that the property settlement agreement (PSA) should be vacated because it was based upon defendant's fraud and bad faith. The judgment of divorce was entered on May 12, 2010, and incorporates the parties' PSA as set forth on the record that day.*fn1 This appeal is the most recent of several post-judgment motions. In a prior motion, plaintiff moved to set aside the PSA. That relief was denied without prejudice in an order filed on December 17, 2010.

The cross-motion plaintiff filed on May 17, 2011, includes six requests for relief and a seventh request to deny the relief requested by defendant. An application to set aside the PSA is not among her requests for relief. Because plaintiff did not seek that relief in her notice of cross-motion, the trial court did not err in denying it.

Plaintiff's second claim on appeal is that the court erred in denying her requests to enforce provisions of the PSA requiring defendant to pay her $499.99 for a New Sony HDR-CX111 camcorder and $249.95 for a new Cannon Powershot Elph 300 HS digital camera. Disputes about personal property had previously been addressed in the December 17, 2010 order. The trial court denied this application on the ground that plaintiff had previously requested the return of items in accordance with the PSA and that the court had already addressed her credible allegations. Based on our review of the certification plaintiff submitted in support of her cross-motion and the other evidential materials included in the record, we see no basis for disturbing the court's determination.

Affirmed.


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.