RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0262-20 J.A.M.,1 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.J.G., Defendant-Respondent. _________________________ Argued September 29, 2021 – Decided October 25, 2021 Before Judges Whipple, Geiger, and Susswein. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hunterdon County, Docket No. FM-10-0286-19. Jared A. Geist argued the cause for appellant. Daniel B. Tune argued the cause for respondent (Martin & Tune, LLC, attorneys; Daniel B. Tune, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM 1 We use initials to protect the victim of domestic violence. See R. 1:38- 3(d)(10). Plaintiff J.A.M. appeals from an August 13, 2020 Family Part post- dissolution order which granted, in part, and denied, in part, cross-motions to reconsider child support, custody and parenting time, distribution of assets, and various other calculations from the June 29, 2020 Dual Judgment of Divorce and Final Judgment After Trial (JOD) between plaintiff and defendant S.J.G. Neither party appealed the JOD. Plaintiff and defendant were married on April 25, 2015, and share a son. In December 2018, plaintiff secured a final restraining order (FRO) against defendant after an incident of domestic violence, leading to the filing of cross - complaints for divorce. On September 26, 2019, the court issued a pendente lite order that defendant provide 50% of her 401k to [p]laintiff's attorney immediately . . . . [Defendant] shall immediately contact the appropriate entity to liquidate and divide the net amount with [plaintiff]. The parties shall use these monies first to pay the experts (or reimburse the party who is documented to have paid the experts) and then to pay counsel. On November 18, 2019, the court issued another order after defendant did not liquidate her 401(k) account and did not "provide [p]laintiff with 50% of her 401(k) after the experts are paid . . . ." The motion court instead ordered A-0262-20 2 defendant to divide the funds "as soon as it becomes practicable for the [qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)] to be issued." The case was tried before a different judge, who entered the JOD on June 29, 2020, addressing on the record the issues of custody, parenting time, alimony, child support, and equitable distribution of assets and debts. It also ordered that defendant's 401(k) would remain defendant's sole property, not subject to reallocation. On July 13, 2020, defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the JOD, asking, in pertinent part, that the court reconsider calculation of the child support guidelines to include alimony paid to plaintiff and for modification of parenting time. Defendant contended the court erred in using an incorrect parenting guideline worksheet, and she presented a modified sole parenting guidelines worksheet that proposed increasing …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals