GALE GARGIULO VS. LOUIS GARGIULO(FM-07-230-10, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1989-15T4

Final Judgment of Divorce (FJOD) (Dec. 12, 2013) allocated marital assets and made defendant Louis responsible for IRS liens totaling $257,094.22, but stated final liability depended on the outcome of his pending U.S. Tax Court appeal of plaintiff Gale Gargiulo’s innocent-spouse determination.
Defendant retained 50% interests in Summit (199-201 Summit Avenue, LLC) and Loupet Realty, with a restriction that his Summit interest not be transferred, encumbered, or altered without plaintiff or court permission; plaintiff’s equitable share was secured by recorded judgments against defendant’s Summit share.
On Dec. 4, 2015, the trial court entered a brief order finding Louis in contempt for failing to pay the IRS liens and threatening a bench warrant unless he immediately began payments; the order did not address the pending Tax Court appeal or Louis’s ability to pay, and no written opinion accompanied the order.
The same Dec. 4 order authorized broad discovery by plaintiff from Summit and Loupet (two years’ distributions to Louis, QuickBooks, leases, ledgers, bank records, tax returns, etc.), denied a receiver request, and required a stipulated protective order; intervenors’ cross-motion for protection was mostly denied.
The trial court denied requests for oral argument on the motions; no supporting factual findings or legal reasoning were provided for the contempt or discovery rulings in the written order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly found Louis in contempt for failing to pay IRS liens	Louis was responsible under the FJOD and must pay the liens; contempt appropriate for nonpayment	FJOD conditioned final liability on the pending Tax Court appeal (innocent-spouse determination); no basis to hold him in contempt while appeal pending and while he lacks ability to pay	Reversed. Court abused discretion: FJOD made liability contingent on Tax Court outcome, so contempt unsupported by facts
Whether plaintiff was entitled to broad discovery from Summit and Loupet and whether oral argument should have been granted	As judgment creditor and given perceived lack of veracity, plaintiff should obtain discovery from entities to trace distributions to Louis	Intervenors (LLCs) argued statutory and procedural limits under LLC Act and produced affidavits denying distributions; requested protective order and oral argument	Reversed and remanded. Trial court failed to state findings and conclusions under Rule 1:7-4 and should permit oral argument on substantive discovery issues

Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127 (2006) (civil contempt under Rule 1:10-3 is coercive, not punitive)
Ridley v. Dennison, 298 N.J. Super. 373 (App. Div. 1997) (contempt relief is coercive to enforce compliance)
Barr v. Barr, 418 N.J. Super. 18 (App. Div. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review for sanctions under Rule 1:10-3)
Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517 (2011) (discussion of law-of-the-case considerations)
Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563 (1980) (trial courts must articulate factual findings and correlate them to law)
Elrom v. Elrom, 439 N.J. Super. 424 (App. Div. 2015) (remand required when trial court fails to make required findings)
Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 2010) (requests for oral argument should ordinarily be granted when significant substantive issues are raised)