April 23, 2012
THOMAS M. HAYES, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
DEBRA A. HAYES, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FM-14-894-00.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted March 27, 2012
Before Judges Nugent and Maven.
Plaintiff Thomas M. Hayes, Jr. appeals from the July 21, 2011 Family Part order that directed him to comply with paragraph 2.3 of the parties' Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) by distributing the agreed-upon portion of his pension to Defendant Debra Hayes. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Thomas L. Weisenbeck in his July 21, 2011 decision.
The facts adduced from the record are as follows. The parties were divorced on November 14, 2001. The Final Judgment of Divorce incorporated the parties' PSA, which sets forth in paragraph 2.3 defendant's entitlement to one-half the value of the coverture portion of plaintiff's pension as of the date plaintiff filed the divorce complaint. Defendant filed a post-judgment motion to enforce litigants' rights seeking to compel plaintiff to comply with the PSA and distribute her share of the pension. In an order dated May 31, 2011, Judge Weisenbeck directed that plaintiff comply with paragraph 2.3 of the parties' PSA. On July 21, 2011, the judge denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and set forth the reasons in a comprehensive written opinion. This appeal followed.
Our standard of review is limited. A decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is addressed to the trial judge's discretion. Fusco v. Newark Bd. Of Educ., 349 N.J. Super. 455, 462 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 174 N.J. 544 (2002); Marinelli v. Mitts & Merrill, 303 N.J. Super. 61, 77 (App. Div. 1997); Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 389 (App. Div. 1996).
On appeal, plaintiff asserts that defendant committed two procedural violations*fn1 that should have precluded the judge from deciding defendant's enforcement motion: (1) defendant failed to serve plaintiff properly as required under R. 1:5-2, and (2) the court improperly accepted an unsigned copy of the PSA as a supporting document in defendant's motion. Plaintiff's claims are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in another written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E). The claims were addressed by Judge Weisenbeck in his thoughtful and well-reasoned statement of reasons accompanying the order denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the judge fully and correctly applied the law to the facts, and in so ruling he did not abuse his discretion.