MYRA P. DIDONATO VS. GEORGE v. DIDONATOÂ (FM-11-0713-05, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3465-15T2

Background

Myra and George DiDonato divorced; a dual judgment of divorce (DJOD) was entered in 2008. Since then George filed 35 motions repeating the same claims and requests.
In September 2015 George filed an order to show cause seeking: payment of their youngest daughter's college tuition, production of Myra’s tax returns, and custody of the daughter. The application was converted to a motion.
A motion hearing occurred December 21, 2015, but the judge dismissed George’s motion without prejudice because he had an active appeal of an earlier order; that appeal was later withdrawn/dismissed.
George refiled the requested relief on short notice after dismissing his appeal. The family judge reviewed the full record (including the 17-day divorce trial and prior motions) and denied the refiled motion on March 18, 2016, finding no changed circumstances and concluding George was a vexatious litigant.
The judge required leave of court before future motions could be filed (the written order applied that restriction to George only). George appealed the March 18, 2016 order; other earlier orders were not appealed timely and thus were not considered.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Myra)	Defendant's Argument (DiDonato)	Held
Whether the March 18, 2016 order denying relief should be reversed	Myra opposed relief and supported the judge’s management of repetitive motions	Argued judges had ex parte communications, failed to read filings, denied opportunity to respond, committed rule/ethics violations, and imposed undue duress via leave requirement	Affirmed: judge’s denial upheld; no timely appeal of earlier orders; George failed to show changed circumstances or provide evidence of misconduct
Whether judicial bias/disqualification occurred	Did not concede bias; opposed relief as baseless	Claimed judicial bias and ex parte contacts; sought disqualification on appeal	Denied: George never moved to disqualify in trial court; appellate court will not consider speculative bias without a trial-court motion/order
Whether appellate filings/appendix were proper	Myra not filing a brief; relied on procedural rules	Included extensive, unrelated materials and raised new issues on appeal	Court rejected consideration of untimely appeals, new issues not raised below, and irrelevant appendix material
Whether imposing leave-before-filing is an improper restraint on access to courts	Myra did not oppose restriction given abusive filings	Argued the leave requirement caused undue duress and unlawfully restricted access	Affirmed: leave requirement upheld as a tailored sanction for vexatious, repetitive filings; judge acted within discretion given findings and defendant’s indigence (monetary sanctions inappropriate)

Key Cases Cited

Rubin v. Rubin, 188 N.J. Super. 155 (App. Div. 1982) (self-represented litigants must follow court rules like represented parties)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (appellate deference to trial court findings supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence)
Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) (motion to modify relief requires prima facie showing of changed circumstances)
Parish v. Parish, 412 N.J. Super. 39 (App. Div. 2010) (limits on filing motions require specific findings of frivolous or vexatious litigation)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standard for disturbing trial court factual findings)
Zamboni v. Stamler, 199 N.J. Super. 378 (App. Div. 1985) (appellate court will not rule in the abstract where no trial-court order was entered on an issue)
Triffin v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 394 N.J. Super. 237 (App. Div. 2007) (court’s inherent power to curb harassment, vexatious litigation, and abuse of process)