Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Henry J. Leingang v. Jane E. Leingang

June 8, 2012

HENRY J. LEINGANG, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JANE E. LEINGANG, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hunterdon County, Docket No. FM-10-0259-96. Henry J.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued April 23, 2012

Before Judges Parrillo and Alvarez.

Plaintiff Henry J. Leingang, pro se, appeals from an April 15, 2011 order denying his motion to: (a) release funds held in his retirement account with Smith Barney; (b) quash a writ of execution to that account; (c) terminate his life insurance obligation to defendant Jane E. Leingang; (d) stay enforcement of orders entered May 2010 and August 2010; and (e) terminate his alimony and medical insurance obligations to defendant.

Plaintiff also appeals the relief the order granted to defendant: (a) compelling Smith Barney to release funds, on a prorated basis, as to individual investments in the account, to satisfy $91,311.46 in arrears, thereby satisfying a writ of execution previously issued for that purpose; (b) compelling Smith Barney to satisfy any future turnover orders also on a prorata basis as to individual investments; (c) compelling Smith Barney to continue to "freeze" plaintiff's accounts and holdings until further order of the court; and (d) awarding $2165 in counsel fees.

Plaintiff also seems to be requesting that we "reconsider" prior 2010 orders entered on May 18 and August 3. Since plaintiff did not file a timely notice of appeal as to these orders and proffers no legal basis for us to now consider them out of time, we decline to do so. We affirm the April 15, 2011 order for the reasons stated by the Family Part judge with the following comments.

Plaintiff's efforts to reduce his 1996 alimony obligation commenced in 2003, when he filed his first motion for downward modification. The facts and circumstances we would ordinarily reiterate have been extensively detailed in the two prior unpublished opinions issued as a result of plaintiff's earlier appeals. See Leingang v. Leingang, Nos. A-0307-05 and A-1425-05 (App. Div. Jan. 3, 2007), and Leingang v. Leingang, No. A-0594-03 (App. Div. Oct. 22, 2004). Suffice it to say that plaintiff's alimony was substantially reduced on May 18, 2010, from $11,833 per month to $6500 per month, inclusive of medical and dental insurance. The order required plaintiff to actually pay $8000 per month, the $1500 difference being allocated towards plaintiff's outstanding arrears.

Plaintiff stopped making payments in 2005. Only by obtaining access to plaintiff's Smith Barney retirement account has defendant been able to collect alimony due to her. Plaintiff is a self-employed California resident.

In rendering his decision from the bench, the trial judge said:

The [c]court after holding -- the Honorable Ann R. Bartlett, after holding a plenary hearing that took place over the course of . . . 5 days in 2009, entered an order on May 18, 2010, clearly outlining the plaintiff's obligations by virtue of a remand that occurred from the Appellate Division regarding alimony. The plaintiff asks me to accept the fact that he has never been served with a copy of this order and based on the evidence before me, I do not accept that representation.

As far as the judgment that this

[c]court entered on January 7, 2011, it was a writ of execution to levy on the plaintiff's retirement funds to pay the defendant the support that he has not paid her in quite some time. By all accounts, including the plaintiff's, he has not paid her a dime of the support that has been ordered by this

[c]court. The plaintiff's application . . . suffer[s] from two things, number one, his historic lack of credibility which he asks me to discard. He asks me to ignore very substantial findings that Judge Bartlett made finding him to be utterly without credibility. That is a difficult proposition to make in light of the fact that the plaintiff has not appealed or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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