FRANCES J. HOFFMAN v. BRUCE W. HOFFMAN
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2197-19T2
FRANCES J. HOFFMAN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
BRUCE W. HOFFMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Argued November 30, 2020 – Decided December 17, 2020
Before Judges Mayer and Susswein.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County,
Docket No. FM-13-0908-98.
Bruce W. Hoffman, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
For the seventh time since the entry of the January 19, 2000 final judgment
of divorce (JOD), defendant Bruce Hoffman has filed an appeal from a post-
judgment matrimonial order. He appeals from a January 17, 2020 order denying
his motion to void the JOD and the November 10, 1999 property settlement
agreement (PSA), as well as denying all other relief requested. Based on our
review of defendant's most recent appeal, we are satisfied the appeal lacks merit
as the same issues have been previously adjudicated by various family court
judges and appellate judges. Therefore, we affirm.
Defendant's efforts to reduce or eliminate his support obligations, vacate
the JOD, set aside the PSA, relitigate equitable distribution, compel plaintiff
Frances Hoffman to fund a retainer to pay defendant's counsel fees, and issue a
bench warrant against plaintiff have been rejected by the trial courts and
affirmed by this court. See Hoffman v. Hoffman, No. A-0986-03 (App. Div.
May 27, 2004); Hoffman v. Hoffman, No. A-4509-05 (App. Div. May 4, 2007),
cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1317 (2008); Hoffman v. Hoffman, No. A-4259-07 (App.
Div. June 1, 2009), certif. denied, 200 N.J. 365 (2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1009 (2010), reh'g denied, 559 U.S. 1117 (2010); Hoffman v. Hoffman,
No. A-4309-10 (App. Div. Dec. 2, 2011), certif. denied, 210 N.J. 27 (2012);
Hoffman v. Hoffman, No. A-5632-12 (App. Div. June 26, 2014); Hoffman v.
Hoffman, No. A-3117-14 (App. Div. Feb. 6, 2017), certif. denied, 230 N.J. 411
A-2197-19T2
2
(2017); Hoffman v. Hoffman, No. A-1363-17 (App. Div. Feb. 15, 2019), certif.
denied, 239 N.J. 507 (2019).
We presume the parties are familiar with the facts based on the foregoing
litigation history. This appeal arises from defendant's December 16, 2019
motion seeking the following relief: setting aside the PSA; rendering a new
equitable distribution determination; scheduling a plenary hearing; requiring
plaintiff fund a retainer to pay defendant's counsel fees; issuing a bench warrant
for plaintiff's arrest if she failed to fund the requested retainer; requiring plaintiff
to provide an updated Case Information Statement (CIS); issuing a bench
warrant for plaintiff if she did not comply; terminating alimony, eliminating all
arrearages, and reinstating defendant's passport privileges; and staying all
outstanding payments and garnishments pending a plenary hearing.
Judge Gregory L. Acquaviva heard the motion on January 17, 2020. In a
written statement of reasons, the judge denied each of defendant's requests. He
noted that defendant had repeatedly claimed the JOD and PSA should be set
aside based on plaintiff's fraud during the negotiation of the PSA. According to
Judge Acquaviva, defendant "re-assert[ed] the same contentions that have been
repeatedly asserted before. And repeatedly rejected before." The judge
concluded defendant's arguments in support of altering the JOD failed to satisfy
A-2197-19T2
3
the requirements of Rule 4:49-2 because "[d]efendant [had] not even put forth
new evidence . . . but, rather, re-argue[d] that the prior court rulings were
incorrect."
Judge Acquaviva also determined defendant's claims failed under Rule
4:50-1, governing relief from a prior judgment. He held defendant offered no
"evidence to substantiate his argument of . . . fraud" in procuring the PSA and
noted defendant was represented by counsel during the negotiation of the PSA.
Further, in November 1999, defendant told the family court judge that the PSA
was fair and equitable. Judge Acquaviva found no unconscionability in the
agreement, only defendant's "mere disagreements with the terms of the
PSA . . . ."
The judge further determined defendant's arguments related to termination
of his financial obligations had been repeatedly raised and rejected by several
family court judges. The judge found defendant failed to make a prima facie
case of changed circumstances. While defendant stated his income dropped
significantly, he failed to show any efforts to "improve his position" or "why he
[was] incapable of finding other employment . . . ." As a result, the judge
determined there was no need for a plenary hearing and rejected defendant's
request to terminate his financial obligations or forgive his arrears.
A-2197-19T2
4
On appeal, defendant argues the following:
POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT SETTING
ASIDE THE PROPERTY SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT BASED ON THE FACTORS THAT
ARE TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER RULE 4:50.
POINT II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THE
DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO STAY PENDING
THE COMPLETION OF A PLENARY HEARING,
THE ALIMONY AND ALL OF THE ARREARAGE
PAYMENTS AND GARNISHMENTS. AND AS
APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE,
IMPLEMENTED N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 IN AN
UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS
AND BRIGHT-LINE MANNER. RESULTING IN
THE DENIAL OF THE DEFENDANT'S DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS.
POINT III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT REQUIRING
THE PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE THE DEFENDANT
WITH A COMPLETE AND UPDATED CASE
INFORMATION STATEMENT. AS IS REQUIRED
BY RULE 5:5-2
POINT IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING A
PLENARY HEARING FOR A NEW
DETERMINATION OF EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION. GIVEN THAT THERE WAS A
PROPER SHOWING OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE.
A-2197-19T2
5
POINT V
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT REQUIRING
THE PLAINTIFF TO FUND . . . A RETAINER FOR
THE DEFENDANT'S BENEFIT PRIOR TO A
PLENARY HEARING. GIVEN THE CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S BAD FAITH,
DECEIT, VARIOUS FORMS OF FRAUD AND OUR
UNEQUAL FOOTING.
Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied defendant's claims are
redundant, reflect his dissatisfaction with the outcome of his prior motions and
related appeals, and fail to raise new issues not previously addressed. The
doctrine of collateral estoppel "bars relitigation of any issue which was actually
determined in a prior action, generally between the same parties . . . ." Tarus v.
Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497, 520 (2007) (emphasis omitted) (quoting
Sacharow v. Sacharow, 177 N.J. 62, 76 (2003)). We need not resolve issues
previously decided on the merits. Moreover, as we stated in our opinion
addressing a prior appeal by defendant, repeated litigation of the same issues is
burdensome to the adverse party as well as the judicial system and is not
permitted. See In re Dawson, 136 N.J. 1, 20-21 (1994) (describing the doctrine
of collateral estoppel).
A-2197-19T2
6
Defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a
written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons set
forth by Judge Acquaviva in his cogent January 17, 2020 written decision.
Affirmed.
A-2197-19T2
7
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.
