KAREN A. ELETTO v. VINCENT ELETTO

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3827-04T23827-04T2

KAREN A. ELETTO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

VINCENT ELETTO,

Defendant-Respondent.

____________________________________________________________

 

Submitted November 14, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Lintner and Holston, Jr.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-2355-03D.

Karen A. Eletto, appellant pro se.

Burns LeBrocq Wolf attorneys for respondent (Michael R. Speck, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals so much of the Family Part's February 23, 2005 order that granted defendant, on an exploratory basis, additional overnight parenting time with the parties' two minor daughters on the first Sunday of each month when the two children are with him. The order permitted the parenting time schedule to be revisited in August 2005, prior to the school year if either party chose to do so.

The motion was brought approximately one year post-divorce based on paragraph 3.2(a) of the parties' property settlement agreement, which states, "[i]t is contemplated that in six (6) months that the parties will revisit the parenting time schedule with regard to husband having Sunday every other week as an overnight stay until Monday morning." Defendant sought overnights on two Sundays per month. The motion judge, in her discretion, granted him one overnight per month.

Plaintiff also appeals that part of the order that granted defendant the full income tax refund for 2003 in the amount of $5,856 instead of dividing it equally as proposed by plaintiff. The court granted the full $5,856 refund to defendant on the basis that the refund belonged to the spouse whose income and tax payments created the overpayment. The court determined that because defendant was the only one working during the year 2003 and the income used to pay the taxes was generated from him that he was entitled to the full refund.

On appeal plaintiff presents the following arguments:

POINT I

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL OVERNIGHT VISITATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED FOR HIS FAILURE TO SUBMIT HIS PERSONAL CERTIFICATION.

POINT II

THE PARTIES AGREEMENT TO "REVISIT" THE PARENTING TIME SCHEDULE AFTER SIX MONTHS IS INSUFFICIENTLY CERTAIN OR SPECIFIC TO BE ENFORCEABLE.

POINT III

ON THE BASIS OF THE ONLY EVIDENCE BEFORE IT, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE DENIED THE RESPONDENT'S MOTION AS NOT BEING IN THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS.

POINT IV

THE COURT SHOULD HAVE DENIED RESPONDENT'S MOTION THAT HE RECEIVE THE FULL JOINT 2003 TAX REFUND AND GRANTED APPELLANT'S MOTION THAT THE TAX REFUND BE DIVIDED EQUALLY.

 
We have reviewed the record in its entirety and conclude that these arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Therefore, the Family Part's February 23, 2005 order is affirmed.

Affirmed.

There are currently two minor daughters born of the marriage, Jacqueline, age seventeen and Jessica, age nine. A third child, Jennifer, has attained her majority. Jacqueline is now a senior in high school and expects to attend college full time in September. Thus, the overnight parenting time issue principally concerns Jessica.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3827-04T2

December 7, 2005