MARGARITA RIVERA v. LOUIS POLGAR

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4092-07T14092-07T1

MARGARITA RIVERA, f/k/a

MARGARITA POLGAR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LOUIS POLGAR,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________

 

Submitted: May 28, 2009 - Decided:

Before Judges Axelrad and Lihotz.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division - Family Part, Mercer County, Docket No. FM-11-1063-05E.

Margarita Rivera, appellant pro se.

Kamensky Cohen & Associates, attorneys for respondent (Laurence I. Tomar, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Margarita Rivera appeals from the Family Part's post-judgment matrimonial order of February 29, 2008, which: (1) denied her motion to vacate a supplemental judgment of divorce (SFJD) dated June 20, 2007; (2) denied without prejudice her request to adjust the effective date of child support; (3) granted her former husband's motion to enforce litigant's rights compelling her to comply with the terms of the SFJD and/or property settlement agreement (PSA), including her obligation to execute deeds and his obligation to pay her the agreed consideration; and (4) denied her former husband's motion for reimbursement of counsel fees.

The record reflects that on June 15, 2005, appellant, represented by counsel, filed a complaint for divorce. Trial commenced on October 30, 2006 before Judge LeWinn. An oral settlement was placed on the record on October 31, 2006, with both parties present and represented by counsel. A final judgment of divorce (FJD) of that date was filed on November l, 2006, incorporating the parties' PSA and providing for appellant's counsel to prepare an SFJD setting forth the terms. Appellant apparently disavowed the settlement, as a result of which defendant filed a motion to enforce the PSA, which was granted on April 5, 2007. The SFJD was entered by the court on June 20, 2007. Appellant filed an appeal that she voluntarily withdrew and was dismissed by order of December l4, 2007 (A-006168-06T3).

On January 11, 2008, appellant filed a pro se motion, in part, to vacate the FJD/SFJD. She challenged the equitable distribution of realty and other aspects of the parties' PSA incorporated in the FJD/SFJD, the quality of her attorney's representation and her mental capacity at the time the FJD was placed on the record. Following oral argument, Judge Mary Jacobson denied the motion, noting appellant's argument was basically a repetition of that previously raised and rejected by Judge LeWinn in opposition to defendant's motion to enforce the PSA. This appeal ensued.

Appellant renews her arguments for the third time, indicating her "disagree[ment] with Judge Jacobson's order" because "equitable distribution was not followed . . . according to the matrimonial state law of [New Jersey]" in her "divorce matter." We affirm substantially for the reasons articulated by Judge Jacobson in her comprehensive oral decision, which fully addressed the issues raised by appellant, including her mental capacity, and referred in detail to the prior findings.

Affirmed.

 

The February 29, 2008 transcript of the motion references Judge LeWinn's findings.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4092-07T1

June 9, 2009