BELLA FRANGIPANE VS. RICHARD FRANGIPANE (FM-02-1092-96, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED), A-3590-15T2/A-5213-15T2/A-1177-16T2

Background

Bella Frangipane and Richard Frangipane divorced in 1997 and entered a marital settlement agreement (MSA) dividing assets, addressing alimony, custody, visitation, and child support.
Post-judgment disputes centered on defendant’s request to reduce/terminate alimony, plaintiff’s challenges to distributions (an annuity and shares in an FC Capital Accumulation Account (FCCAA)), and multiple rounds of motion practice (2015–2016).
Trial court reduced defendant’s alimony after finding changed circumstances based on defendant’s age, health issues, reduced hours, and the parties’ financial positions.
The court initially authorized a forensic accountant to assess the Metropolitan Annuity’s value, but later vacated that order on reconsideration, finding plaintiff knew of the Annuity at the time of divorce and there was no fraud.
Plaintiff sought recusal and re-accounting of FCCAA distributions (claiming entitlement to additional shares); the court found distributions proper and no fraud by defendant.
Appellate division limited its review to the specific orders appealed, afforded deference to Family Part factual findings, and affirmed the challenged orders.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether alimony reduction required vacatur/reconsideration	Frangipane argued she was not informed alimony would be decided at the November hearing; reduction was erroneous and evidentiary rulings improper	Defendant argued changed circumstances justified alimony reduction and plaintiff was not prejudiced by procedure	Court affirmed: judge did not abuse discretion; changed circumstances supported modification and plaintiff had notice and was not prejudiced
Whether a plenary hearing was required on alimony modification	Frangipane contended a plenary hearing was required because factual disputes existed	Defendant argued no prima facie showing necessitated a plenary hearing and judicial economy supported deciding on papers/limited hearing	Held: plenary hearing not required; no disputed facts warranting full plenary hearing
Whether the Annuity required re-accounting or showed fraud	Frangipane claimed the Annuity was improperly handled and sought forensic accounting/value split	Defendant maintained plaintiff knew of the Annuity at divorce and no fraud occurred	Court affirmed vacation of prior forensic-accountant order; found plaintiff knew of Annuity in 1996 and no fraud by defendant
Whether judge erred by not recusing and whether FCCAA distribution was fraudulent	Frangipane argued judicial bias and that she was owed additional FCCAA shares requiring re-accounting	Defendant argued no basis for recusal and that FCCAA distribution complied with MSA	Court held recusal was not warranted (no reasonable basis to doubt impartiality) and substantial credible evidence supported proper FCCAA distribution; no fraud found

Key Cases Cited

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (deference to Family Part findings in matrimonial matters)
MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 191 N.J. 240 (standard for upholding factual findings)
Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (changed circumstances needed to modify alimony)
Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374 (standard for reconsideration review)
Rolnick v. Rolnick, 262 N.J. Super. 343 (review standard for alimony modification findings)
Deegan v. Deegan, 254 N.J. Super. 350 (retirement as changed circumstance; voluntary vs involuntary analysis)