KAREN J. DREES VS. PETER T. DREES(FM-02-162-13, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0940-14T3

Background

Parties married in 2001; two children; plaintiff filed for divorce in 2012 seeking custody, equitable distribution, alimony, child support, and counsel fees; defendant counterclaimed.
Extensive pretrial discovery and settlement negotiations at an Intensive Settlement Conference resolved most issues; three issues remained for trial: (1) alleged dissipation of an E-Trade account, (2) plaintiff’s request for retroactive pendente lite relief, and (3) pendente lite support based on defendant’s true income.
On May 22, 2014 counsel placed settlement terms on the record (including alimony as one-third of income difference based on a $173,000 base salary, waiver of premarital retirement claims, and QDRO division of marital retirement accruals); disagreement later arose over the duration of alimony and the precise retirement-account division.
Trial occurred and post-trial submissions followed; plaintiff’s proposed Dual Final Judgment of Divorce (DFJD) was submitted under the five-day rule; the trial judge signed the DFJD after a June 19, 2014 hearing in which she announced “seven and one-half” years for alimony and incorporated other settlement terms.
The AFJD (Amended Dual Final Judgment) entered July 2, 2014 fixed alimony at $37,650/year for 7.5 years, set child support, awarded plaintiff half of the E-Trade account ($42,050.50), repair costs, and $25,000 counsel fees; defendant’s reconsideration motion was denied October 6, 2014; defendant appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by not resolving parenting-coordinator fee dispute before trial	Drees (plaintiff) argued disputed coordinator fees were irrelevant to the three issues tried and coordinator was not a party	Drees (defendant) argued trial should not proceed until third-party fee dispute (Dr. Hatton) resolved	Court: No error — dispute involved a nonparty and was the subject of a separate Law Division action; irrelevant to issues tried
Whether AFJD was unenforceable because court failed to resolve alimony duration before entry	Plaintiff: terms on record and AFJD reflected agreed/appropriate terms	Defendant: alimony duration disputed (wanted 7 years; plaintiff 8); court should have held plenary hearing before entering final judgment	Court: AFJD’s 7.5-year term was a reasonable exercise of discretion and supported by the record; no reversible error
Whether AFJD improperly disposed of retirement accounts without plenary hearing	Plaintiff: parties had placed retirement-account agreement on the record; AFJD incorporated those terms	Defendant: disputed that only marital portions should be divided and that the record did not support plaintiff’s representation	Court: No error — May 22 record confirms the parties’ agreement; AFJD properly incorporated settlement terms
Whether reconsideration motion was evaluated under incorrect standard	Plaintiff: trial court correctly applied reconsideration standards and Williams factors for fees	Defendant: court required motion for reconsideration instead of using interest-of-justice review before entering judgment	Held: No merit — court appropriately invited reconsideration given lack of transcript/notes; defendant suffered no prejudice; denial of reconsideration affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. Williams, 59 N.J. 229 (1971) (factors for awarding counsel fees in matrimonial matters)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (deference to Family Part in domestic relations matters)
Tannen v. Tannen, 416 N.J. Super. 248 (App. Div. 2010) (standard for affirming equitable distribution decisions)
Baxter v. Fairmont Food Co., 74 N.J. 588 (1977) (standard for disturbing trial court judgments)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv’rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standard for appellate review when weighing evidence)