Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Renita Mangru v. Karl Mangru


January 23, 2013


On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, Docket No. FM-09-0159-05.

Per curiam.


Submitted January 8, 2013 --

Before Judges Yannotti and Harris.

Defendant appeals from an order entered by the Family Part on January 13, 2012, which declared that defendant was in violation of the court's order of May 18, 2010, and required defendant to comply with that order within thirty days. We affirm.

The parties were married on July 6, 1995, and they had three children. The marriage was dissolved by a final judgment of divorce filed on June 9, 2005, which incorporated the parties' Property Settlement Agreement (PSA), dated June 9, 2005. Among other things, the PSA provided that certain real property located on Kennedy Boulevard in Jersey City would be listed for sale when the parties' eldest child reached the age of eighteen. The PSA stated, "Both parties shall share equally in the net rents as well as expenses of upkeep of said property, including, but not limited to maintenance fees, condominium association fees, taxes and repairs until such time of said sale."

In 2009, plaintiff filed a motion in aid of litigant's rights, which resulted in the entry of an order dated August 25, 2009. Among other things, the order provided that plaintiff "shall receive" rent in the amount of $336.40 commencing on September 1, 2009, presumably from the Kennedy Boulevard property. The order stated that this amount was the net amount due, after payment of all expenses.

It appears that sometime thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion in aid of litigant's rights, claiming that defendant owed her net rental income from the property, pursuant to the final judgment of divorce and the PSA. The court entered an order dated May 18, 2010, requiring defendant to pay plaintiff $5,000, and to pay plaintiff's counsel fees in the amount of $2,500.

Sometime later, plaintiff filed another motion in aid of litigant's rights. It appears that plaintiff claimed defendant had not complied with the court's May 18, 2010 order. Plaintiff apparently claimed that defendant still owed her $5,000, plus $2,500 in counsel fees.

The court entered an order dated January 13, 2012, which stated in pertinent part:

Plaintiff certified that Defendant had not complied with provisions of this Court's Order dated 5/18/2010, specifically, that Defendant had not paid Plaintiff the $5,000 for net rental income from 12/2009 onward nor $2,500 for counsel fees. Defendant replied, stating that he provided proof to Plaintiff of the rental payments for 12/2009 to 11/2011. Defendant also stated that he did not think he should be made to pay for Plaintiff's counsel fees despite being ordered to do so.

Defendant is in violation of the Court's Order dated 5/18/2010. He did not make the $5,000 payment within the [ten] day time period. He did not make the payment for counsel fees and continues to openly object to the obligation. Pursuant to [Rule] 1:10-3, the Court shall enforce Plaintiff's rights. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff the $5,000 for rental income and the $2,500 for counsel fees within [thirty] days of the date of this Order. If payment is not made by that time, Defendant shall be sanctioned $10.00 per day for every day the total amount is not paid. If payment is still outstanding in [forty-five] days, a warrant shall be issued for Defendant's arrest.

On February 22, 2012, defendant filed a notice of appeal and a motion for a stay of the trial court's order pending appeal. On April 17, 2012, we entered an order denying defendant's motion.

In his appeal, defendant argues that he provided the trial court with proof of payment and therefore the trial court should not have again ordered him to pay plaintiff $5,000 in net rental income from the property and $2,500 in counsel fees. We are convinced from our review of the limited record before us that defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). However, we add the following brief comments.

In his appendix, defendant has included a statement, which he claims establishes that he paid plaintiff the net rental income he was required to pay by the court's May 18, 2010 order. Attached to the statement are copies of checks purportedly written to plaintiff, bank statements presumably showing that certain checks were cashed, and receipts for expenses allegedly incurred for the property.

It is unclear whether any of this information was provided to the trial court in opposition to plaintiff's motion in aid of litigant's rights. Defendant has not presented us with a copy of any affidavit or certification that may have been filed in the trial court, attesting to the correctness of his statements and indicating the documents are true and accurate copies of the originals. Furthermore, defendant has not provided copies of any affidavit, certification or exhibits that plaintiff may have presented to the trial court in support of her motion.

We are satisfied that, based on the limited record before us, defendant has not carried his burden of showing that the trial court erred by finding that he had not paid plaintiff the $5,000 in net rental income, as required by the court's May 18, 2010 order. We additionally note that none of the information included in the appendix indicates that defendant paid the $2,500 in counsel fees that the May 18, 2010 order required him to pay.



© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.

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.