NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1973-19T1 LINDA L. FELTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GARY M. FELTON, Defendant-Respondent. _________________________ Submitted September 21, 2020 – Decided October 1, 2020 Before Judges Mayer and Susswein On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, Docket No. FM-15-0758-16. Richard R. Mazzei, attorney for appellant. Respondent did not file a brief. PER CURIAM Plaintiff Linda L. Felton appeals from a December 6, 2019 order regarding her motion to enforce litigant's rights and a cross-motion by defendant Gary M. Felton to enforce litigant's rights. We affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts as set forth in our decision in Felton v. Felton, No. A-4433-17 (App. Div. Aug. 23, 2019) (Felton I). Slip op. at 1-2. In Felton I, we vacated and remanded an April 20, 2018 order "for recalculation of the amount to which plaintiff [was] entitled" based on defendant's military pension. Id. at 1. We concluded "the first step in the process was the calculation of defendant's retirement benefit using the military point system, and the second step was the application of the Marx [v. Marx, 265 N.J. Super. 418 (Ch. Div. 1993)] formula to that amount as agreed to by the parties in the [property settlement agreement (PSA)]." Id. at 6. We "vacated [the April 20, 2018 order] and the matter [was] remanded to the Family Part for further proceedings . . . ." Ibid. Nothing in Felton I instructed the judge on remand to apply the percentages as sought by plaintiff for distribution of defendant's military pension because that determination was left to the judge. On September 30, 2019, the Family Part judge ordered defendant's pension be divided in accordance with Felton I and set a new return date for plaintiff's application for attorney's fees. Just ten days later, plaintiff filed a A-1973-19T1 2 motion seeking the following relief: placing defendant in custody due to his continued contempt of court for failure to pay counsel fees in accordance with a December 8, 2017 order and an April 20, 2018 order; requiring defendant reimburse plaintiff in the amount of $5,772, representing the difference between thirty-five percent of his pension and forty-two and one-half percent of his pension from the date of the PSA to the present; compelling defendant to pay $156 per month, representing the difference between thirty-five percent of his pension and forty-two and one-half percent of his pension until plaintiff is paid directly by the military; counsel fees in the amount of $3,230 for plaintiff's prior motion denied without prejudice on April 20, 2018; and counsel fees associated with plaintiff's appeal and additional legal services incurred by plaintiff through November 1, 2019. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals