NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-4822-18 NEETI WADHWA, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Respondent, v. AMIT SETHI, Defendant-Respondent/ Cross-Appellant. ________________________ Submitted September 14, 2020 – Decided June 16, 2021 Before Judges Messano and Suter. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-1299-11. Neeti Wadhwa, appellant/cross-respondent pro se. Damiano Law Offices, attorneys for respondent/cross- appellant (Toni Belford Damiano, of counsel and on the briefs; Ruchika S. Hira, on the briefs). PER CURIAM Plaintiff Neeti Wadhwa appeals from paragraph one of the April 4, 2019 order and paragraphs one through eight of the June 12, 2019 order entered in this post-judgment matrimonial case. Defendant Amit Sethi cross-appealed portions of both orders that concerned attorney's fees. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings. I. The parties were married in India in 2002. Plaintiff filed for divorce in 2010, and following a bench trial, they were divorced in 2012. They have one child, who was born in 2006. The parties' dual judgment of divorce (DJOD) from 2012 incorporated their 2011 custody and parenting time agreement. The parties agreed to share joint legal custody. Plaintiff was designated the parent of primary residence. Under the DJOD, defendant paid limited duration alimony to plaintiff for four years. Those payments are completed. Plaintiff and defendant were entitled to half of the marital portion of the 401K of the other party. Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) were to be prepared for each 401K. Plaintiff was to receive one-half of the investment accounts, totaling $15,885.09. She was entitled to $177,675, which was one-half of the marital assets that defendant was found to have dissipated. Defendant was to pay $10,000 toward A-4822-18 2 plaintiff's attorney's fees. All of these amounts were to be paid in sixty days. See Wadhwa v. Sethi (Wadhwa III), No. A-5309-15 (App. Div. Apr. 3, 2018) (slip op. at 3). A. The case has been the subject of multiple appeals. In Wadhwa v. Sethi (Wadhwa I), No. A-3121-11 (App. Div. Apr. 24, 2013) (slip op. at 1), we remanded the case to the Family Part following defendant's appeal of the DJOD that found he dissipated and distributed marital assets. On remand, the Family Part judge reduced the dollar amount of the dissipated marital assets, but in the second appeal, we eliminated credits the trial court had given, determining that "defendant dissipated a total of $186,000 and must pay plaintiff one-half, the proportion of dissipated assets ordered reimbursed to her by the trial judge." Wadhwa v. Sethi (Wadhwa II), No. A-3121-11 (App. Div. Oct. 10, 2014) (slip op. at 2). Under Wadhwa II, defendant was required to pay plaintiff $93,000 in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals