RICHARD SEIKUNAS v. DANIELE SEIKUNAS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1166-04T11166-04T1

RICHARD SEIKUNAS,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DANIELE SEIKUNAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________________________________

 

Argued October 26, 2005 - Decided February 7, 2006

Before Judges Fall and Parker.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,

Morris County, FM-14-285-02.

James M. Andrews argued the cause for appellant

(Blank Rome, attorneys; Mr. Andrews and Michelle

McGovern, of counsel and on the brief).

Steven M. Segalas argued the cause for

respondent (Damiano Law Offices, attorneys;

Mr. Segalas, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, defendant Daniele Seikunas appeals from an order entered on September 22, 2004 denying both parties' applications for counsel and expert fees and costs. We affirm.

The complaint for divorce was filed in August 2001 and after extensive pendente lite litigation, the parties settled most of the issues on August 21, 2003. Their agreement was placed on the record and Judge Stephan C. Hansbury granted the divorce on the record. When the form of judgment was submitted, however, the parties disputed the terms of the settlement and a dual judgment of divorce was not entered until December 24, 2003. The judgment incorporated a Property Settlement Agreement (Agreement) consistent with that placed on the record in August. As part of the Agreement, the parties "agreed to make application to the court for an award of attorney and expert fees and costs by way of written submissions, which may be followed by oral argument or such other evidentiary proceedings as may assist the Court in resolving said issue(s)." The subsequent cross-applications for fees were submitted to Judge Hansbury. After considering the parties' submissions, Judge Hansbury rendered a comprehensive written decision in which he concluded that neither party's application for fees should be granted.

In this appeal, defendant argues: (1) the disparity of incomes and earning abilities of the parties justifies an award to defendant; (2) plaintiff's bad faith throughout the litigation justifies an award to defendant; and (3) we should assume original jurisdiction and take judicial notice of the change in custody and plaintiff's firing of his seventh and eighth attorneys. Defendant has submitted an appendix in excess of 1,300 pages to support her arguments.

We have carefully considered the extensive record before us and defendant's arguments in light of the applicable law. We are satisfied that Judge Hansbury's decision is based on findings of fact which are adequately supported by the evidence. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A). Judge Hansbury's decision details the history between these parties with respect to their incomes and addresses defendant's contention that plaintiff exercised bad faith in dragging the litigation out for two years when the issues could have been settled in nine months. Judge Hansbury's decision is well reasoned, and we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in that opinion.

 
Affirmed.

Although the parties have characterized the judgment entered on December 24, 2003 as a "supplemental dual final judgment of divorce," no judgment had actually been entered prior to that date, although Judge Hansbury granted the divorce on the record on August 21, 2003.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1166-04T1

February 7, 2006