MICHAEL DOBLIN VS. LINDA DOBLINÂ (FM-02-556-99, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5066-15T3

Background

Michael and Linda Doblin married in 1994, separated in 1997, and divorced by judgment in 2001; extensive post-judgment litigation (custody, support, alimony) followed for many years.
Parties executed a prenuptial agreement containing an alimony waiver; an arbitrator (2003) found the agreement valid but awarded defendant alimony and directed a three-year review; Family Part confirmed the award.
Multiple post-judgment orders were entered in 2006–2008 (including consent orders, support and sanction orders, and a 2008 order denying alimony and awarding fees). Appellate Division affirmed the 2008 order in 2012.
In 2016 defendant moved under Rule 4:50-1 to vacate several prior orders (2006–2008), claiming forgery of her signature, lack of judge’s signature, lack of interpreter, and other procedural defects.
Trial court denied relief as barred by res judicata, found defendant’s renewed attack frivolous, and imposed counsel-fee sanctions against defendant’s counsel; defendant appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 4:50-1 relief is available to vacate the 2006–2008 orders	4:50-1 relief is extraordinary and unavailable because defendant re-litigates matters already decided and waited too long; res judicata bars relief	The 2006–2008 orders are void or voidable due to forgery, lack of judicial signature, lack of interpreter, and other defects meriting vacatur under Rule 4:50-1(d) and (f)	Denied; res judicata/collateral estoppel bars relitigation of those final post-judgment orders and no new facts justify relief
Whether defendant’s newly asserted forgery/fraud-on-the-court claim warrants vacatur	Fraud claims must be supported and cannot be manufactured after years of litigation; no timely or new evidence was presented	The consent order signature was forged and therefore the orders are void; fraud on the court excuses any time bar	Denied; no objective evidence of forgery or newly discovered facts; Shammas standard not satisfied after decade of litigation
Whether the 2007 support/sanctions orders were invalid for being entered without a formal motion	Plaintiff points to the parties’ consent in 2006 that allowed court to decide certain relief on submissions, validating subsequent orders	Defendant contends procedural defect (no motion) renders those orders invalid	Denied; parties’ consent and prior orders show court acted within the scope of submissions; claims repackaged prior litigation
Whether sanctions under Rule 1:4-8 and an award of counsel fees were appropriate	Plaintiff sought sanctions for frivolous re-litigation; counsel warned and refusal to withdraw supports fee award	Defendant (and counsel) implied the motion had merit and should not be deemed frivolous	Sanctions affirmed; judge properly found motions frivolous, counsel put on notice, and fee award reasonable under Rule 5:3-5 and applicable standards

Key Cases Cited

Housing Auth. of the Town of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274 (1994) (Rule 4:50-1 relief is discretionary and should be granted sparingly in exceptional circumstances)
Shammas v. Shammas, 9 N.J. 321 (1952) (fraud on the court requires showing that falsity could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence)
Nolan v. First Colony Life Ins. Co., 345 N.J. Super. 142 (App. Div. 2001) (elements and application of res judicata in New Jersey)
Watkins v. Resorts Int'l Hotel and Casino, Inc., 124 N.J. 398 (1991) (res judicata principles: final judgment, identity of parties, same transaction)
Wausau Ins. Co. v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. of N.J., 312 N.J. Super. 516 (App. Div. 1998) (Rule 4:50-1 is not a substitute for appeal or reconsideration and is subject to timeliness review)
Todd v. Sheridan, 268 N.J. Super. 387 (App. Div. 1993) (consent judgments embody best-interest determinations and can obviate plenary hearings)
Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) (a plenary hearing is unnecessary where no genuine issue of material fact exists)
Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70 (2005) (factors for awarding counsel fees in matrimonial litigation)