BRIAN HUNTER v. FRANCINE HUNTER

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1572-05T51572-05T5

BRIAN HUNTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FRANCINE HUNTER,

Defendant-Respondent.

_______________________________

 

Submitted May 3, 2006 - Decided May 19, 2006

Before Judges Stern and Alley.

On appeal from the Superior Court, Chancery Division - Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-0367-05F.

Salvatore De Lello, Jr., attorney for appellant.

Jeney & Jeney, attorneys for respondent (Sarah O'Connor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Brian Hunter, appeals from a November 18, 2005, order of the trial court, which required the parties to "cooperate regarding the financing of the former marital residence."

The facts briefly were these. The trial court entered an order following the entry of an amended final Judgment of Divorce on August 17, 2005. Specifically, plaintiff filed a motion for enforcement of litigation rights on October 6, 2005. Defendant filed a cross-motion. The matter was heard by Judge Jessica R. Mayer, on November 18, 2005, and an order was entered that date memorializing her ruling.

Thereafter, on November 29, 2005, defendant sought an order enforcing that portion of the November 18, 2005 order which compelled plaintiff to cooperate with defendant's refinance of the former marital home. Plaintiff responded with a letter dated November 29, 2005. The court denied defendant's order to show cause on November 30, 2005 and converted defendant's application into a motion returnable on December 16, 2005. On December 1, 2005, plaintiff filed his notice of appeal from the order entered on November 18, 2005. The court heard defendant's application on December 16, 2005. As a result of that order, the parties entered a consent order on December 21, 2005.

Defendant, on or about December 21, 2005, closed on the refinance of the former marital home. She purchased plaintiff's interest in the former home for $65,000, pursuant to the parties' Amended Dual Judgment of Divorce.

It is well-settled that:

A case is moot if the disputed issue was resolved, at least with respect to the parties who instituted the litigation. Moot or academic appeals are generally dismissed. Thus, a court will not decide a case if the issues are hypothetical, a judgment cannot grant effective relief, or there is no concrete adversity of interest between the parties.

[Advance Electric Co., Inc. v. Montgomery Twp. Bd. of Educ., 351 N.J. Super. 160, 166 (App. Div. 2002), certif. denied, N.J. 364 (2002) (citations omitted).]

In this case, a check in the amount of $65,000 was forwarded to plaintiff. The relief otherwise sought in the appeal became moot. Appellant had received payment for his interest in the home, so the appeal otherwise is moot.

The appeal is dismissed.

 

There is no reply brief contesting the facts occurring after the entry of the November 18, 2005 order or indicating what relief he seeks at this time.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1572-05T5

May 19, 2006