MILIJANA DROBNJAK VS. DEJAN DROBNJAK (FM-11-1052-14, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1285-17T2

Milijana and Dejan Drobnjak were divorced after plaintiff filed in 2014; two children born 1998 and 2001.
Defendant's counsel was relieved; Dejan failed to comply with discovery, was defaulted pursuant to Rule 5:5-10, and did not move to vacate the default.
A Notice of Proposed Final Judgment was served; the trial court entered a comprehensive Final Judgment of Divorce (FJOD) on June 8, 2016 after a default hearing, setting child support, limited-duration alimony, life and health insurance duties, allocation of college and extraordinary child expenses, counsel fees, and disposition of U.S. and Serbian real property interests.
FJOD treated Serbian property as 50% owned by Milijana and ordered the California property interest transferred to Milijana with an offset credit to Dejan; business held not subject to distribution.
Nearly a year later Milijana moved to enforce multiple FJOD provisions; Dejan cross-moved pro se to vacate the FJOD alleging bad faith, fraud, and changed circumstances.
The motion judge enforced most provisions, denied Dejan’s motion to vacate under Rule 4:50-1 (finding no fraud, voidness, or exceptional grounds), and denied relief based on changed circumstances without prejudice because Dejan failed to file required case information statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforcement of FJOD obligations (child support, insurance, college/extra expenses, counsel fees, property transfers)	Milijana sought enforcement of enumerated FJOD provisions and arrears/set-offs	Dejan opposed enforcement and generally challenged fairness	Court granted enforcement; motion judge credited trial judge’s findings and denied defendant’s opposition
Motion to vacate FJOD under Rule 4:50-1 (fraud/misrepresentation)	N/A (Milijana opposed vacatur)	Dejan alleged plaintiff/attorney acted in bad faith and FJOD was inequitable/fraudulent	Vacatur denied: no record support for fraud or misconduct under Rule 4:50-1(c)
Vacatur claims that judgment is void or warrants relief for other reasons (Rule 4:50-1(d) & (f))	N/A	Dejan argued FJOD void/other exceptional reasons to set aside	Denied: no basis showing voidness; Rule 4:50-1(f) denied—no exceptional circumstances
Changed financial circumstances and evidentiary deficiencies (jurisdictional/modified relief)	Milijana opposed; sought enforcement, credits, suspension of alimony	Dejan claimed changed circumstances warranted revisiting equitable distribution and obligations; also claimed Serbian property owned by his father	Motion judge declined to reopen equitable distribution absent required case information statements; rejected belated Serbian ownership proof not presented below

Mancini v. EDS, 132 N.J. 330 (1993) (default-vacatur motions should be viewed liberally to reach just results)
Marder v. Realty Constr. Co., 84 N.J. Super. 313 (App. Div. 1964) (liberality in vacating defaults)
Eaton v. Grau, 368 N.J. Super. 215 (App. Div. 2004) (different standards govern vacatur of equitable distribution vs. modification of continuing obligations)
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449 (2012) (Rule 4:50-1 balances finality and equitable relief)
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Curcio, 444 N.J. Super. 94 (App. Div. 2016) (trial court Rule 4:50-1 decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Hous. Auth. of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274 (1994) (Rule 4:50-1(f) reserved for exceptional circumstances)
Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199 (2014) (appellate courts will not consider material not presented to the trial court)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (deferential standard of review for family-court findings)
Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414 (2015) (trial court factual findings in family matters are afforded deference)
Steneken v. Steneken, 367 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. 2004) (use of statutory equitable-distribution factors in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.1)