DONNA S. SECK VS. THEODORE R. SHALACKÂ (FM-12-1303-11, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1563-15T2

Background

Parties married in 1996; divorced by dual final JOD in 2011 incorporating a matrimonial settlement agreement (MSA). No children.
MSA allocated plaintiff's TIAA‑CREF retirement account (marital portion to be split 50/50, premarital portion specified as $39,444.92) and required QDROs for dividing the parties’ retirement accounts (defendant's E‑Trade and Wells Fargo IRAs). Exhibit A awarded plaintiff a ~5×7 multi‑color rug.
Pension appraisal valued the TIAA‑CREF at $524,366.41 (marital portion determined by a .6246 coverture fraction). Plaintiff argued defendant’s share was $144,037.17; defendant argued a larger share based on a different reading of the MSA.
Defendant failed to prepare QDROs and failed to comply with court orders to produce IRA statements; plaintiff’s counsel obtained account statements by POA and court later set off plaintiff’s IRA share against defendant’s TIAA share.
Plaintiff sought a $2,395 credit for a rug defendant discarded; initial court awarded the credit based on a store salesperson’s note. Trial court awarded plaintiff partial counsel fees; parties appealed the distribution, rug credit, and fee award.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper calculation of marital share and defendant's percentage of plaintiff's TIAA‑CREF	Use pension appraisal coverture fraction to determine marital pot; defendant entitled to 50% of marital share → defendant = $144,037.17 (or alternatively lower)	MSA limits premarital portion to $39,444.92; defendant claims larger share (one‑half of total minus premarital amount) and disputes coverture application	Affirmed in part: trial court did not abuse discretion in using the pension appraisal/coverture fraction; court’s ultimate figure for defendant ($163,759.63 in order) stands as reasonable under record and coverture analysis.
Division of defendant's E‑Trade and Wells Fargo IRAs by QDRO versus immediate setoff	Plaintiff sought immediate credit/setoff for her 50% share because defendant failed to comply with QDRO orders; setoff avoids further disputes	Defendant argued MSA required QDROs and court should enforce that method; setoff could create tax consequences	Affirmed: defendant’s repeated noncompliance waived his right to insist on QDRO route; setoff of plaintiff’s IRA shares was permissible on record.
Credit for discarded household rug (value $2,395)	Plaintiff relied on store salesperson note showing a $2,395 price (with $995 sale price) for a rug and argued she should be credited for replacement/value	Defendant challenged sufficiency and relevance of the evidence and later opposed the rug award	Reversed: trial court’s $2,395 credit unsupported by reliable evidence; remand for further proof or denial; plenary hearing if material facts remain in dispute.
Award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff	Fees sought for multiple motions and responses; plaintiff obtained partial relief	Defendant contended the court failed to apply statutory/factor test (N.J.S.A. 2A:34‑23; R.5:3‑5) and made insufficient findings	Reversed and remanded: fee award lacked necessary findings and task/result linkage; trial court to reconsider fees consistent with statutory/rule factors after resolution on remand.

Key Cases Cited

La Sala v. La Sala, 335 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2000) (trial court allocation of marital assets reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Barr v. Barr, 418 N.J. Super. 18 (App. Div. 2011) (coverture fraction explained and recognized for retirement‑benefit distribution)
Eisenhardt v. Eisenhardt, 325 N.J. Super. 576 (App. Div. 1999) (definition and operation of coverture fraction)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (trial court factual findings binding if supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standard for appellate deference to trial court findings)