On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FM-07-154-06.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Yannotti and Espinosa.
Plaintiff's notice of appeal states that he appeals from two post-judgment orders in this heavily litigated matrimonial action, dated July 1, 2011 and August 23, 2011. However, plaintiff raises arguments in his brief and appendix regarding orders dated October 23, 2009, December 11, 2009, and an order dated August 19, 2011, which denied his motion to stay the July 1, 2011 order. None of these orders were identified in the notice of appeal and no transcripts have been provided other than the transcripts relating to the orders identified in the notice of appeal. Our review is therefore limited to the orders dated July 1, 2011 and August 23, 2011. See Rule 2:5-1(f)(3)(A) (the notice of appeal "shall designate the judgment, decision, action or rule, or part thereof appealed from[.] . . ."); see also W.H. Indus. v. Fundicao Balancins, Ltda., 397 N.J. Super. 455, 458 (App. Div. 2008) ("It is clear that it is only the orders designated in the notice of appeal that are subject to the appeal process and review."); Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 6.1 on R. 2:5-1 (2013). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the orders of July 1 and August 23, 2011.
This case has an extensive history of post-judgment motion practice. We summarize only the facts and procedural history relevant to our review.
The parties were married in January 1989 and had three children. Plaintiff filed for divorce in July 2005, and the parties entered into a property settlement agreement (PSA) in January 2007. Although post-judgment motion practice commenced earlier, the motions that led to the orders appealed from began in February 2011, when plaintiff filed a motion seeking enforcement of an earlier order regarding the sale of the marital home.
As part of her cross-motion, defendant sought contribution toward the children's unreimbursed orthodontic and medical expenses; reimbursement for college expenses and a contribution toward future college expenses of the parties' son; and counsel fees. In addition, defendant moved to compel plaintiff to disclose his prior year's tax returns and W-2 so that plaintiff's child support obligation could be modified due to the emancipation of their oldest daughter, who had married. Plaintiff responded by requesting that defendant be compelled to provide financial documents, including documentation of bank accounts in Greece and documentation concerning income-producing property defendant allegedly possessed in Greece, and defendant's Greek tax returns.
In the April 1, 2011 order that resolved these motions,*fn1
the motion judge ordered the parties to submit their 2010
W-2s and income tax returns. The order also directed that plaintiff
and defendant share the cost of their son's college expenses on a
respective 60/40 basis; that defendant provide proof that the
children's orthodontic work was necessary, and that upon such proof,
plaintiff would be responsible for 60% of the cost. After defendant
provided income information and proof regarding the orthodontic
treatment, plaintiff filed a motion to compel the disclosure of
additional financial information,*fn2 contending that
defendant's admitted income was insufficient to support her expenses
At the July 1, 2011 motion hearing, plaintiff argued that his child support obligation should be set at $196 per week, an amount he calculated based on a weekly income of $1795 for himself, and a weekly income of $768 for defendant, plus "add[ing] some income [to defendant's weekly income] that I believe it's there." However, the proofs plaintiff relied upon failed to show the existence of unreported income from Greece. The documents were in Greek and, because they were from 2005 and 2006, did not provide current information.
The July 1, 2011 order disposed of plaintiff's motion to compel the disclosure of additional financial records and defendant's cross-motion with the following provisions:
1. Defendant shall be reimbursed $1482.00 by plaintiff as and for costs she paid for the children's orthodontic treatment within 30 day[s] of the date hereof. In addition plaintiff shall pay the orthodontist directly $78 dollars per month for [K.H.'s] braces and $72.00 per month for [M.H.'s] braces beginning July 2011; and
2. Plaintiff shall pay to defendant $288.00 per week as and for child support for the two unemancipated children of the parties. Said sum is based on $1795.00 income for the plaintiff and $768.00 income for the defendant; and
3. . . . The parties['] son [K.H.] shall continue to be a full time student taking a minimum of 12 credits per semester. If he does not take 12 credits or withdraw[s] from a class child ...