NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0911-18T1 SHARI L. POLLAK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAVID KALEN, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________ Submitted November 4, 2019 – Decided January 8, 2020 Before Judges Messano and Vernoia. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County, Docket No. FM-18-0469-06. David Kalen, appellant pro se. Jill Lisa Gropper, attorney for respondent. PER CURIAM Defendant David Kalen and plaintiff Shari L. Pollak were married in 1991 and together had three children, who were born in 1993, 1996 and 2000. Plaintiff filed a divorce complaint in 2005, and, following trial, the court entered an amended final judgment of divorce on December 18, 2008. A December 2016 consent order modified the parties' obligations, specifically with respect to defendant's child support and arrears, and the parties' respective percentage obligations for the children's unreimbursed medical expenses. 1 Motion practice continued unabated, however, leading to Judge Kimarie Rahill's February 2018 order that addressed plaintiff's motion to enforce litigant's rights and defendant's cross-motion which sought, among other things, to schedule a plenary hearing, to declare plaintiff wholly responsible for the children's medical costs, and to compel reunification therapy. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, and defendant responded, incorporating, through counsel's certification, essentially the same requests for relief sought in the earlier cross- motion. Defendant did not file a cross-motion. After considering oral argument, Judge Rahill entered an order on June 5, 2018. The judge granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's request for reconsideration, stating her reasons in a comprehensive written opinion. On July 9, 2018, defendant filed a motion seeking reconsideration of both the February and June orders. Defendant requested that the court vacate the 1 The actual order is not in the record. A-0911-18T1 2 June order; require "financial disclosure to recalculate child support based upon emancipation" of one of the children; schedule the matter for a plenary hearing; and provide for a "conference relating to anticipated motion practice." The court's August 10, 2018 order disposed of defendant's motion for reconsideration. Judge Rahill denied defendant's requests for counsel fees, a plenary hearing and a conference. However, she only denied in part defendant's request for financial disclosure by plaintiff in order to recalculate child support obligations based on the parties' son's emancipation. The judge ordered an exchange of updated Case Information Statements within fourteen days "so that [the] child support amount can be recalculated in view of . . . emancipation as of January 1, 2018." In her written statement of reasons, the judge appropriately set forth the standard for reconsideration. She first noted that the June 2018 order was the result of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, and, while defendant opposed the motion and his counsel ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals