JENNIFER LYNN PARKER v. PAUL CHARLES PARKER

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1434-07T11434-07T1

JENNIFER LYNN PARKER,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PAUL CHARLES PARKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________

 

Submitted September 29, 2008 - Decided

Before Judges Carchman and R. B. Coleman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket No. FM-20-325-05.

Paul Charles Parker, appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Paul Charles Parker appeals from a November 2, 2007 order of the Chancery Division, Family Part, denying his motion for reconsideration of an order dated September 28, 2007, enforcing the judgment of divorce which was entered seven months earlier on February 9, 2007. The reply brief of plaintiff Jennifer Lynn Parker was suppressed as untimely, and defendant's prior pending appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution.

The Chancery Division's order compels enforcement of various portions of the judgment of divorce in light of defendant's willful violation of litigant's rights for failure to (1) pay pendente lite spousal support of $100 per week from August 21, 2006 through February 5, 2007; (2) pay rehabilitative alimony payments of $100 per week which were to be paid from March 1, 2007 through July 6, 2007; (3) pay child support in the amount of $176 per week to begin on March 1, 2007 through July 6, 2007; (4) return various personalty to plaintiff ordered as part of the divorce judgment; and (5) reimburse plaintiff for outstanding medical bills and transportation expenses as ordered.

We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that defendant's argument that the Chancery Division judge erred lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Based upon our review of the record, we are satisfied that the findings of Judge Karen M. Cassidy are well supported by the record; and she correctly applied the governing legal principles. We perceive there is no error or improper exercise of discretion in her determinations.

We, therefore, affirm substantially for the reasons given by Judge Cassidy in her well-reasoned, written statements dated September 21, 2007 and November 2, 2007.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1434-07T1

June 24, 2009