NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3014-19 RICHARD REPACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILONA AKIMOVA, Defendant-Respondent. _________________________ Submitted April 26, 2021 – Decided May 18, 2021 Before Judges Mayer and Susswein. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-1223-18. Garces, Grabler & Lebrocq, PC, attorneys for appellant (Arlindo B. Araujo, on the briefs). Marlo J. Hittman, attorney for respondent. PER CURIAM Plaintiff Richard Repack appeals from a February 28, 2020 order denying his motion to vacate a November 13, 2018 Dual Final Judgment of Divorce (DFJOD) to seek an annulment of his marriage to defendant Ilona Akimova. We affirm. Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, met defendant, a citizen of Russia, in 2009. On August 8, 2012, the parties married in Italy. After the marriage ceremony, plaintiff claimed the parties rarely saw each other, spending roughly two weeks physically living together. He also contended the marriage was never consummated. According to plaintiff, in October 2015, after defendant obtained her "Alien Registration Card in November 2014," she sought to end the marriage. The parties separated soon thereafter. Plaintiff claimed defendant married him solely to obtain permanent legal status in the United States. Defendant portrayed the marriage differently. She claimed the parties lived together starting in September 2014, as soon as she was "lawfully allowed to do so" based on her immigration status. Defendant wanted a "complete marriage," including children. According to defendant, the parties had a "normal marriage" for a brief time, including consummation of the marriage. In addition, defendant explained, as a married couple, they vacationed, went out to dinner, and resided in the same home. A-3014-19 2 Due to various marital issues, the parties separated in 2015. Defendant alleged plaintiff became "emotionally distant" and encouraged her to leave the house. She also stated plaintiff's behavior became "extremely unsettling" and "hostile." On December 13, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint for "annulment or divorce." In his complaint, plaintiff asserted the following claims: annulment, divorce by irreconcilable differences, fraud in the inducement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, deceit, breach of contract, marital tort claims under Tevis v. Tevis, 79 N.J. 422 (1979), and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff's complaint alleged the marriage was never consummated and defendant owed him money. Defendant filed a responsive pleading, and the parties exchanged discovery. On November 13, 2018, the parties appeared in court with their counsel. The parties, through counsel, advised the Family Part judge the matter settled. Consequently, the judge questioned the parties regarding the settlement and granted a DFJOD, incorporating and attaching a handwritten settlement signed by parties.1 According to the settlement, the "parties agree[d] to divorce on 1 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals