C.E.N. v. P.E.A.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3870-23 C.E.N., 1 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P.E.A., Defendant-Respondent. Argued September 22, 2026 – Decided October 14, 2026 Before Judges Vanek and Bergman. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Docket No. FM-07- 2898-19. C.E.N., self-represented appellant. Ejike N. Uzor argued the cause for respondent. PER CURIAM 1 We use initials to protect the parties' privacy and the confidentiality of the proceedings in accordance with Rule 1:38-3(d)(10). Plaintiff C.E.N. appeals from the May 8, 2024 Family Part order granting in part defendant's cross-motion to enforce provisions of the parties' marital settlement agreement (MSA) incorporated into the parties' Final Judgment of Divorce (FJD), denying without prejudice plaintiff's request to compel defendant to pay child support, and from the July 9, 2024 order denying reconsideration. Having considered plaintiff's arguments in light of the record and applicable legal principles, we affirm. I. We recite the factual and procedural history below. Plaintiff and defendant P.E.A. were married in 2017, and are the parents of one child, born in 2018. The record exhibits their relationship was marked by substantial conflict, and a final restraining order was entered against plaintiff in April 2019. The parties were divorced by an FJD entered in November 2019. The FJD incorporated an MSA. In January 2024, plaintiff filed a post-judgment motion seeking reimbursement for child support overpayments and an order compelling defendant to pay child support based on a prior custody change wherein plaintiff became the custodial parent of their child. Defendant filed opposition and cross- moved to enforce plaintiff's alimony and counsel fee obligations as set forth in A-3870-23 2 the parties' MSA. In response, plaintiff asserted defendant's cross-motion was not filed in the FM docket, was therefore defective, and should not have been considered by the court. Defendant acknowledged the motion was initially filed under the parties' domestic violence matter rather than the FM docket, but maintained plaintiff was served, responded, and was not prejudiced. The enforcement dispute raised by defendant's cross-motion concerned what version of the MSA controlled. Defendant contended the operative MSA included paragraph 9, requiring plaintiff to pay $500 per month in limited - duration spousal support for twelve months, and paragraph 28, requiring plaintiff to pay defendant's attorney $2,500 at the rate of $100 per month for twenty-five months, both of which plaintiff failed to pay. Plaintiff maintained the operative MSA was marked "P-1" at the final hearing and did not include the above paragraphs that defendant claimed required him to pay the limited- duration alimony and counsel fees requested in her cross-motion. After conducting argument, the court found defendant's counsel had "by accident or in error filed the cross-motion in the wrong docket," but that plaintiff had in fact received it. The court further found the original return date of April 8, 2024 was adjourned to May 3, 2024 to provide plaintiff with sufficient time to respond, and he, in fact, had filed a response before the return date and argued A-3870-23 3 the issues at the motion hearing. Based on these findings, the court denied plaintiff's request to bar consideration of defendant's cross-motion. The court granted plaintiff a reimbursement of $976.44 for child support overpayments made after the change of custody. The court denied without prejudice plaintiff's request to compel defendant to pay child support because plaintiff had not supplied sufficient current financial documentation, including an accurate case information statement (CIS), his three most recent pay stubs, and his most recent tax return, in order to calculate child support. The court also granted defendant's enforcement application and ordered plaintiff to pay $6,000 in unpaid alimony and $2,500 in unpaid counsel fees pursuant to the terms in the MSA and prohibited any offset of the parties' respective obligations. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, reiterating defendant's cross-motion was procedurally defective and the MSA the court relied upon was not the effective agreement incorporated into the FJD. Following argument, the court denied reconsideration. The court noted that it had reviewed the eCourts file and confirmed the MSA attached to the FJD that included plaintiff's obligations for alimony and attorney's fees was the one it had enforced. Concerning defendant's cross-motion filed under the wrong docket number initially, the A-3870-23 4 court found the filing error was not harmful because plaintiff had received the motion, had time to respond, and did respond before the adjourned hearing date. On appeal, plaintiff contends the trial court erred by 1) considering a purported cross-motion that was neither properly filed nor served; 2) relying on a disputed and unauthenticated version of the MSA; 3) denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration; 4) failing to make specific findings or provide a reasoned basis for denying plaintiff's motion to compel child support; and 5) failing to ensure procedural fairness, which deprived plaintiff of due process. II. Our review of Family Part orders is limited. Family Part courts possess special expertise in domestic relations matters, and we therefore accord deference to their factfinding. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998). We will not disturb factual findings and discretionary determinations unless they are unsupported by adequate, substantial, and credible evidence or constitute an abuse of discretion. Gonzalez-Posse v. Ricciardulli, 410 N.J. Super. 340, 354 (App. Div. 2009). Questions of law, however, are reviewed de novo. D.W. v. R.W., 212 N.J. 232, 245-46 (2012). The court has broad equitable authority to enforce litigants' rights and to fashion appropriate remedies for violations of court orders and settlement A-3870-23 5 agreements. Finger v. Zenn, 335 N.J. Super. 438, 446 (App. Div. 2000); Rule 1:10-3. An order enforcing litigants' rights is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Wear v. Selective Ins. Co., 455 N.J. Super. 440, 458-59 (App. Div. 2018). In assessing procedural irregularities, courts may apply the doctrine of substantial compliance to avoid technical defeats of otherwise valid claims. Alan J. Cornblatt, P.A. v. Barow, 153 N.J. 218, 239-40 (1998). The doctrine applies where there is an absence of prejudice, steps taken toward compliance, general satisfaction of the rule's purpose, reasonable notice, and a reasonable explanation for the deviation. Negron v. Llarena, 156 N.J. 296, 305 (1998). Finally, reconsideration under Rule 4:49-2 is reserved for cases in which the court's decision was based on a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or where the court failed to consider significant competent evidence. Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996); D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990). Plaintiff first argues the trial court erred by considering defendant's cross- motion because it was not properly filed and served. Defendant acknowledges a filing error, but asserts plaintiff was served and responded. We are unpersuaded by plaintiff's contentions. The trial court expressly resolved that dispute by finding defendant's counsel mistakenly filed the cross-motion under A-3870-23 6 the wrong docket, however plaintiff actually received it, the original hearing date was adjourned for almost four weeks to allow plaintiff time to respond, and plaintiff filed a response before the hearing. The record supports the court's finding as defendant filed opposition and a supporting certification on March 27, 2024. We conclude under these circumstances, the filing defect was technical, not prejudicial. Defendant took steps to respond by filing her opposition and cross-motion, albeit under the wrong docket, served plaintiff, and the matter proceeded in the FM part on the adjourned return date. Plaintiff had reasonable notice of the relief sought, filed a written response, and appeared at the May 3, 2024 hearing and argued the merits. The purpose of the filing and service rules—to provide fair notice and an opportunity to be heard—was therefore satisfied. See Negron, 156 N.J. at 305 . Plaintiff's due process argument fails for the same reasons. Due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 106 (1995). In this instance, the motion was adjourned to afford plaintiff additional time to respond. Thereafter, he submitted opposition and provided oral argument concerning defendant's cross-motion. On this record, the trial A-3870-23 7 court did not abuse its discretion in declining to bar consideration of plaintiff's opposition and cross-motion, nor did it deny plaintiff due process. Plaintiff next contends the court erred by enforcing the wrong MSA. The record does not support this contention. Plaintiff asserts the operative MSA, which he described as marked "P-1," omitted the provisions for alimony and counsel fees. The trial court addressed that dispute directly on reconsideration. The court found it had reviewed the eCourts file and the FJD therein confirmed that the MSA attached to the judgment was "the identical MSA" offered by defendant containing paragraph 9, requiring $6,000 in limited-duration spousal support and paragraph 28, requiring $2,500 in counsel fees and was the MSA the court had utilized in its May 8, 2024 enforcement order. The record exhibits the court did not rely merely on defendant's representations but relied on the prior judicial record of the divorce hearing, including the MSA attached to the FJD in the court's file. Plaintiff points to his own differing copy of the MSA, but we conclude the court was in the best position to verify what was actually attached to the FJD in its file. The court found plaintiff had produced no prior order or agreement negating his obligations under paragraphs 9 and 28 of the MSA. The record shows the court's enforcement ruling was straightforward. It found the MSA required plaintiff to A-3870-23 8 pay $500 per month for twelve months in alimony and $100 per month for twenty-five months in counsel fees, and that plaintiff had not made those payments. The factual record supports those findings. "An appellate court 'should exercise its original fact-finding jurisdiction sparingly and in none but a clear case where there is no doubt about the matter.'" Cesare, 154 N.J. at 412 (quoting Rova Farms Resort Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). Therefore, we conclude the court acted within its equitable authority in enforcing those obligations. Finger, 335 N.J. Super. at 446 . Plaintiff next argues the court denied his child support application without making sufficient findings. We disagree. Rule 1:7-4(a) requires findings adequate to explain the court's decision and permit appellate review. The court satisfied that obligation by providing an explanation that it could not calculate child support because plaintiff had not submitted the appropriate financial proofs required to do so. Specifically, the court found plaintiff had not provided "the three most recent pay stubs" or his "most recent tax return," and that plaintiff's CIS was not accurate even by plaintiff's own account. Based on those deficiencies, the court denied the motion without prejudice. Rule 5:5-4-Motions in Family Actions- states, in pertinent part: a. Motions. A-3870-23 9 .... 4. Motion attachments for modification or termination of alimony or child support not based on retirement. When a motion or cross motion is filed for modification or termination of . . . child support, other than an application based on retirement filed pursuant to N.J.S.A.2A:34- 23(j)(2) and (j)(3), the movant shall append copies of the movant’s current [(CIS)] and the movant’s [CIS] previously executed or filed in connection with the order, judgment or agreement sought to be modified. If the court concludes that the party seeking relief has demonstrated a prima facie showing of substantial change of circumstances or that there is other good cause, then the court shall order the opposing party to file a copy of a current [CIS]. [R. 5:5-4(a)(4).] In addition, the CIS form under Rule 5:5-2 requires attachments, including copies of the movant's three most recent paystubs and the most recent tax returns filed by the applicant.2 The trial court denied the application on the ground that plaintiff had not supplied sufficient financial documentation, in particular, for failure to provide recent income information, including three most recent paystubs, a recent tax return, or W-2 forms. The record supports the court's 2 Family Part Case Information Statement, New Jersey Cts., https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/forms/10482_fam_cis.pdf at page 1 of 12. (last visited September 30, 2026). A-3870-23 10 stated reasons for denying plaintiff's support motion, which was not an abuse of discretion. Plaintiff next contends the trial court erred by denying reconsideration. Reconsideration is not a vehicle to reargue matters already considered. Cummings, 295 N.J. Super. at 384 . We concur with the court's finding that plaintiff's reconsideration motion largely repeated the same arguments he advanced initially—that the cross-motion was procedurally defective and the court enforced the wrong MSA. The court addressed both of these issues on the record and found plaintiff had received the cross-motion, had time to respond because the matter was adjourned, had in fact responded, and was not prejudiced by the filing defect. It also confirmed, after reviewing the eCourts file and FJD, that the MSA it had enforced was the actual MSA attached to the FJD. Nor did plaintiff show the May 8, 2024 order was based on a palpably incorrect or irrational basis. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. at 401 . In fact, the court investigated the MSA attached to the FJD in the court file prior to rendering its decision on plaintiff's reconsideration motion and confirmed the MSA required limited duration alimony and counsel fees as asserted by defendant. We therefore conclude the trial court's reconsideration ruling reflects a reasoned A-3870-23 11 rejection of plaintiff's contentions, is supported by the record, and was not an abuse of discretion. Affirmed. A-3870-23 12