ISABELLA BLUMBERG VS. GIRSH BLUMBERG (FM-20-1243-10, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)
A-5481-13T4, A-3416-14T4, A-4070-14T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | May 23, 2017Background
- Parties divorced in 2013; JOD provided equitable distribution, child support, alimony, joint legal custody and sole physical custody to plaintiff of the minor daughter, and designated plaintiff as power of attorney to effectuate asset transfers.
- Disputes arose post-judgment over (a) plaintiff’s sale of the former marital home, (b) recalculation/arrears of defendant’s pendente lite support, (c) freezing and QDROs for defendant’s retirement accounts, and (d) alleged failures to reimburse insurance premiums and account for marital funds.
- Defendant filed multiple emergent and post-judgment applications (OTSC converted to motion) seeking to void the house sale, emancipate the daughter, unfreeze retirement accounts, vacate portions of the JOD, and obtain various credits/reimbursements; plaintiff moved to enforce litigant’s rights and to approve QDROs.
- Family Part denied defendant’s emergency relief, denied most of his motions (including emancipation and reconsideration), froze defendant’s retirement accounts pending QDROs, and appointed plaintiff attorney-in-fact for equitable distribution to effectuate the JOD.
- Appellate division consolidated three appeals challenging those post-judgment orders; it affirmed, finding adequate evidentiary support for the Family Part’s rulings and no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration or emergency relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sale of former marital home / plaintiff’s authority to sell | Sale was authorized by JOD and plaintiff acted within her rights to sell and effectuate distribution | Sale was unauthorized, transaction should be voided, and defendant’s property/rights impaired | Court held sale was authorized under the JOD; denied defendant’s requests to void the sale |
| Emancipation / termination or modification of child support | Plaintiff opposed termination absent proper support modification motion and provided to produce enrollment documentation | Defendant argued daughter was emancipated (college) and support should terminate or be recalculated | Court denied emancipation relief without prejudice; directed production of enrollment docs and noted modification requires proper motion |
| Freezing of retirement accounts and QDRO approvals | Plaintiff sought freezes until QDROs qualified and approval of plaintiff-submitted QDROs to effect distribution | Defendant sought to unfreeze accounts and prevent QDRO approvals | Court upheld freezes given asset-transfer history, approved the QDROs submitted by plaintiff, and ordered QDRO processing |
| Reconsideration / litigant’s rights / arrears and accountings | Plaintiff sought enforcement of JOD, reinstatement of arrears, and found defendant in violation of litigant’s rights for failing to remove property and account for funds | Defendant argued judge failed to consider his evidence, sought reconsideration, credits, vacatur of arrears and other relief | Court denied reconsideration (no new credible proof), reinstated arrears based on findings of lack of credible accounting, and found defendant in violation of litigant’s rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwartz v. Schwartz, 68 N.J. Super. 223 (App. Div.) (trial court familiarity with family matters merits deference)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (trial court legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Llewelyn v. Shewchuk, 440 N.J. Super. 207 (App. Div. 2015) (appellate deference when evidentiary support exists)
- Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480 (1981) (appellate review standards regarding factual findings)
- Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374 (App. Div. 1996) (standards for granting reconsideration)
- D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392 (Ch. Div. 1990) (reconsideration standard guidance)