TEHMINA ALI v. SHAUKAT ALI

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3461-03T53461-03T5

A-5135-03T5

TEHMINA ALI,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SHAUKAT ALI,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________

Submitted (A-3461-03T5) September 21, 2005

 
Argued (A-5135-03T5) September 21, 2005 -

Decided

Before Judges Conley and Sapp-Peterson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Sussex County, FM-19-307-99 (A-3461-03T5 and A-5135-03T5).

Shaukat Ali, appellant pro se in

A-3461-03T5.

Shaukat Ali, appellant, argued the cause pro se in A-5135-03T5.

Respondent Tehmina Ali did not file a brief in A-3461-03T5 or A-5135-03T5.

PER CURIAM

These are consolidated appeals of two orders entered by the trial court arising out of post-judgment motions filed in the Family Part by plaintiff and defendant, who were granted a judgment of divorce on December 31, 2002.

In the first order, entered January 23, 2004, the motion judge: (1) directed defendant to pay attorney's fees previously awarded; (2) permitted plaintiff to obtain an equity loan on property owned by the defendant; and (3) denied defendant's motion to reverse the judgment of divorce.

The second order, dated April 23, 2004, directed defendant to: (1) endorse a check in the amount of $1,215.94; (2) secure the Family Part's permission before serving upon plaintiff any further motions or orders to show cause with respect to the divorce action; (3) pay counsel fees; and (4) fully respond to plaintiff's Information Subpoena.

Our review of the record, in light of the written arguments advanced by defendant, discloses that these contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant extensive discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E). We affirm substantially for the reasons articulated by the motion judge in his oral opinion delivered on April 23, 2004. We add the following:

The January 23, 2004, order was entered without a hearing conducted on the parties' motions. Therefore, no record was made. Additionally, defendant's submissions on this appeal reveal no written findings or conclusions by the motion judge explaining the written order, contrary to the requirements of R. 1:7-4. Although a remand is the ordinary course in such circumstances, it is not always necessary where the parties' positions and applicable law are clear. Henschke v. The Borough of Clayton, 251 N.J. Super. 393, 397-98 (App. Div. 1991). Such is the case here.

The record reveals defendant failed to obey the previous orders directing him to pay plaintiff's counsel fees, and possessed assets from which those fees could be satisfied. Consequently, there was no abuse of discretion by the motion judge in compelling the payment of those fees and permitting plaintiff to obtain an equity loan secured by a rental property owned by defendant as an additional means by which counsel fees could be paid.

Defendant filed his motion to reverse the judgment of divorce on January 8, 2004, more than one year after it was entered. His certification in support of the motion alleged that plaintiff and her attorneys committed fraud, misrepresentation, and engaged in other misconduct. Whether viewed as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to R. 4:49-2 or as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to R. 4:50-1, defendant's motion to reverse the judgment of divorce was untimely. Motions for reconsideration must be filed within twenty days of the entry of the judgment. R. 4:49-02. Motions for relief from judgment based upon fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct must be filed within one year of the entry of judgment. R. 4:50-2. Moreover, plaintiff previously sought to set aside the judgment of divorce in his appeal to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the judgment. See Ali v. Ali, Docket No. A-2849-02 (App. Div. October 15, 2003), certif. denied, 179 N.J. 310 (2004).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3461-03T5

September 30, 2005