NANCY COX v. JAMES J. COX, JR.

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5957-04T25957-04T2

NANCY COX,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMES J. COX, JR.,

Defendant-Respondent.

______________________________________

 

Submitted April 26, 2006 - Decided May 11, 2006

Before Judges Stern and Kimmelman.

On Appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, FM-15-966-97N.

Nancy Cox, appellant pro se.

James J. Cox, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Nancy Cox appeals pro se from a post-judgment order entered June 3, 2005 which denied her application for reimbursement of $130,903.94 related to the sale of her former marital home and for $4,827.33 in expenses related to the home. The order also denied her application for an increase in the weekly alimony of $290 which was being paid by the defendant since the time of divorce on September 2, 1998. The judge properly rejected her argument that her alimony was entitled to be increased because the federal government provides for annual social security payment increases. The order provided that she had failed to establish changed circumstances sufficient to warrant modification. See Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980).

Plaintiff's ex-husband, the defendant James J. Cox, Jr., also appears pro se, having filed a letter in lieu of a formal brief. Plaintiff's brief contains no argument but merely provides an appendix of orders, papers, and documents related to the divorce between the parties and subsequent proceedings, all of which we have carefully reviewed.

The papers show that the sum of $130,903.94 was paid to plaintiff as part of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home and her claim for expenses of $4,827.33 was previously denied by order entered April 2, 2004.

Under all of the circumstances, we are satisfied to affirm the order of June 3, 2005 for the reasons expressed by Judge Millard.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-5957-04T2

May 11, 2006

 


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.