NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted September 11, 2013
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, Docket No. FM-13-11754-89.
Weiner Lesniak, LLP, attorneys for appellant (Joseph M. Freda, III, on the brief).
Fox Rothschild LLP, attorneys for respondent (Jennifer Weisberg Millner, of counsel and on the brief; Eliana T. Baer, on the brief).
Before Judges Sapp-Peterson, Lihotz and Hoffman.
In this post-judgment matrimonial action, defendant David Haber appeals from that part of Judge Paul X. Escandon's May 24, 2011 order directing him to pay plaintiff $410, 097.54 in spousal and child support arrears, including interest, and imposing a trust to secure his future support obligations. We affirm.
The parties were married in 1971. Three children were born of the union. They separated in 1988, with the children remaining in plaintiff's custody and defendant eventually moving to California. Because defendant failed to appear, a default final judgment of divorce (FJOD) was entered against him on January 16, 1991. The FJOD established defendant's obligations for child support, alimony, equitable distribution and arrearages. Haber v. Haber, 253 N.J.Super. 413, 415 (App. Div. 1992). After his unsuccessful appeal of the entry of default judgment, the parties became embroiled in post-judgment proceedings which, at times, were bi-coastal despite the fact that the FJOD was issued in New Jersey and plaintiff and their children continued to reside in this state. The nature and results of those proceedings were detailed in our unpublished decision issued last year and need not be repeated here. Haber v. Haber, No. A-0828-10 (App. Div. Mar. 8), certif. denied, 210 N.J. 479 (2012).
The May 24, 2011 order under appeal represents the final resolution of proceedings held on or conducted on January 18, 2011, related to a September 14, 2010 order where, among other relief granted to plaintiff, the court froze certain of defendant's investment assets. Although an audit of defendant's probation account was pending at the time the September 14 order was entered, the order froze $750, 000 of defendant's assets and directed defendant to pay $3500 in counsel fees to plaintiff. On October 15, 2010, defendant filed an order to show cause to determine which of his accounts were to remain frozen. The court converted the matter into a regular calendar motion and plaintiff cross-moved for further enforcement relief.
The court conducted oral argument on December 3, 2010, and subsequently conducted a telephone conference during which the court requested that the parties submit additional information. Defendant, however, failed to do so. On January 18, 2011, the court entered an order denying defendant's motion in its entirety and granting plaintiff's motion:
(1) Defendant's Motion is hereby DENIED.
a. Defendant's request that any and all Orders temporarily enjoining or restraining the transferring, gifting, drawing upon or otherwise disposing or dissipating of the funds within Defendant's bank accounts shall be vacated is DENIED.
b. Defendant's request that the freezes currently in place on the following accounts shall be lifted and the Defendant shall be permitted to transfer or utilize these accounts, without ...