On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-203-04.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Messano and Guadagno.
In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Dawn Zera, appeals from portions of a March 30, 2011 order addressing visitation, tax deductions, and access to frequent flier accounts. Plaintiff also appeals from a June 13, 2011 order denying her motion for reconsideration of the March 30 order.
After reviewing the record and the applicable law in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.
Plaintiff and defendant, Kevin Krushinski, were married on October 17, 1993 and had three children. Plaintiff filed for divorce in 2003 and the case was tried over three days between February 15, 2005 and July 26, 2005. A letter opinion was filed on October 24, 2005 and minor revisions are contained in a letter dated December 19, 2005.
The judgment of divorce (JOD), filed on January 30, 2006,*fn1
awarded plaintiff sole legal and residential custody of the three children and included a visitation schedule for defendant. Defendant was ordered to pay rehabilitative alimony of $160 per week for a period of six years and child support of $176 per week.
The JOD did not designate who could claim the children as tax deductions,*fn2 although the December 19, 2005 letter provided: "[w]ith regard to Defendant's taking tax exemption for the children, the judgment is to be silent, with the parties to await a post-judgment Order."
The entry of the JOD ended the marriage but signaled the beginning of a long and tortured history of post-judgment litigation marked by extensive, contentious and acrimonious motion practice.
In June 2006 plaintiff filed a removal motion seeking to relocate with the children to Texas. After a hearing, an order was entered on August 3, 2006, permitting plaintiff to move with the children to San Antonio. The order required plaintiff: to arrange and be responsible for transporting the children to and from Texas to New Jersey for the following periods of parenting time with the defendant:
a) Five (5) consecutive summer weeks to coincide with the children's school break. The defendant, if working during said five weeks, shall arrange for appropriate day care for the children.
b) One week to coincide with the children's winter school break. The parties shall alternate the Christmas holiday.
c) Once week to coincide with the children's spring school break.
Defendant's motion for reconsideration of this order was denied on October 6, 2006. In 2007, defendant moved to terminate alimony, increase parenting time and claim the children as tax deductions. An order entered on November 2, 2007, ...