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.

Burkett v. Mejia

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

August 7, 2013

ANNE BURKETT, f/k/a ANNE B. MEJIA, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOSE A. MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted March 19, 2013

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FM-14-0853-07.

Snyder & Sarno, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Angelo Sarno, of counsel and on the brief; Scott D. Danaher, on the brief).

Anne L. Burkett, respondent pro se.

Before Judges Lihotz and Kennedy.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a portion of the Family Part's post-judgment order in this matrimonial matter requiring him to provide plaintiff with, among other things, his income tax returns each year until he has paid in full his substantial arrearages in alimony and equitable distribution. Defendant argues that that portion of the motion judge's order is not based upon "good cause" and violates defendant's "legitimate expectation of privacy." We disagree and affirm.

We briefly set forth the facts, which are essentially uncontested.

Plaintiff and defendant were married in 1981, and two sons were born of the marriage in 1989 and 1993, respectively. The marriage was terminated by a dual judgment of divorce dated August 22, 2007, which incorporated the terms of a property settlement agreement (PSA) the parties agreed to on the same date. The PSA required defendant to pay to plaintiff $360, 000 per year in permanent alimony, payable in monthly installments of $15, 000, with a lump sum payment of $180, 000 due at the end of each year. The PSA also required defendant to pay to plaintiff $250, 000 in satisfaction of her claim to equitable distribution of defendant's restricted stock options, in installments as follows: $80, 000 upon signing the PSA; $80, 000 within one year; and $90, 000 within two years.

Defendant failed to make the required payments under the PSA and plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the PSA. On March 23, 2009, the Family Part entered an order which modified the payment schedule and set an interest rate for the arrearages. The order also required the parties to mediate the outstanding financial issues.

After mediation, the parties executed a settlement agreement (SA) dated December 29, 2010, which, in pertinent part, modified alimony and child support payments, and accrued defendant's arrearages in alimony and equitable distribution to March 1, 2011, at which time defendant would pay off the sums over ten years with interest in amounts determined by an accountant. The SA also provided that if defendant failed to make any of the payments, the remaining balance would become due and plaintiff would be entitled to "entry of a judgment" in the amount of the balance.

Defendant failed to make the payments in accordance with the SA and plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. She claimed that defendant owed $706, 089.60 in alimony arrearages and $182, 727.64 in equitable distribution arrearages, including interest. Plaintiff sought judgment for those sums, as well as an order requiring defendant to provide "proof of income" together with tax returns.

Defendant cross-moved for an order extending the time to make payments and requiring the parties to return to mediation. He also challenged the calculation of the ...


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.