BARBARA DIGIOIA v. ANTONIO DIGIOIA

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4380-03T34380-03T3

BARBARA DIGIOIA,

Plaintiff-Respondent/

Cross-Appellant,

v.

ANTONIO DIGIOIA,

Defendant-Appellant/

Cross-Respondent.

__________________________________

 

Argued May 10, 2006 - Decided July 31, 2006

Before Judges Wecker, Fuentes and Graves.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,

Morris County, Docket No. FM-14-1572-02.

Vincent P. Celli, argued the cause for

appellant/cross-respondent (Celli & Schlossberg,

attorneys; Mr. Celli and Jodi Argentino

Durrenberger, on the brief).

Patricia L. Veres argued the cause for

respondent/cross-appellant.

PER CURIAM

Both parties appeal from the final judgment of divorce entered by the Family Part. In his direct appeal defendant Antonio DiGioia argues that the trial court: (1) should have ordered a retroactive decrease in alimony support, because the evidence showed that the pendente lite support received by plaintiff over the two-year period while this matter was pending trial was excessive; (2) failed to properly consider evidence that impugned plaintiff's credibility; (3) improperly and unfairly distributed the parties' personal property; and (4) abused its discretion in awarding plaintiff counsel fees.

In her cross-appeal plaintiff Barbara DiGioia argues that the trial court erred in setting the amount of alimony, by imputing income to her that was not supported by the evidence, and by failing to consider payments she has made toward her youngest daughter's college tuition.

This case was tried over a four-day period, commencing on December 9, 2003, and ending on January 12, 2004. In addition to presenting certain documentary evidence, the trial consisted entirely of testimony from the parties themselves, and from their youngest daughter Elizabeth, who was called as plaintiff's witness. Given this record, the trial judge's resolution of the issues presented was greatly dependent upon his credibility findings.

After reviewing the record, and in light of the applicable standard of appellate review, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Hansbury in his memorandum of opinion issued contemporaneously with the entry of the judgment of divorce. Because Judge Hansbury's memorandum of opinion describes, in detail, the salient facts developed at trial, we incorporate them by reference, in lieu of restating them here.

The scope of our review of alimony orders entered by the trial court is limited. So long as they are supported by credible evidence in the record, we are required to defer to the factual findings made by the trial judge in determining the amount of alimony awarded. Overbay v. Overbay, 376 N.J. Super. 99, 106 (App. Div. 2005); Cox v. Cox, 335 N.J. Super. 465, 473 (App. Div. 2000). We are satisfied that Judge Hansbury's findings are amply supported by the record. We reach the same conclusion with respect to the court's award of counsel fees to plaintiff and to the equitable division of the personal property acquired by the parties during their thirty-year marriage.

Affirmed on the appeal and cross-appeal.

 

Elizabeth DiGioia was twenty-three years old at the time she testified. The parties had a total of four daughters who were all adults at the time of trial.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4380-03T3

July 31, 2006