DIANNE MARCHIE v. THOMAS P. NEVINS, SR.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3690-05T13690-05T1

DIANNE MARCHIE,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

THOMAS P. NEVINS, SR.

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

 

Submitted November 1, 2006 - Decided February 23, 2007

Before Judges Winkelstein and Fuentes.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part Warren County, Docket No. FM-21-223-95.

Mark Rogers, attorney for appellant.

Florio, Perrucci, Steinhardt & Fader, attorneys for respondent (Douglas J. Steinhardt, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Thomas P. Nevins, Sr. appeals from the order of the Family Part directing the sale of the marital residence and thereafter holding the proceeds of the sale in escrow, pending a determination of certain credits claimed by plaintiff. The final judgment of divorce provided that when the parties' youngest child

either graduates from high school or becomes emancipated, whatever is first, the house will be appraised; the father is then given the option of buying the mother's interest in the home or the house will be sold and net proceeds divided after the father is reimbursed for all mortgage payments he has made from February 5, 1995 . . . to date of the sale.

It is undisputed that the trial court entered this order based entirely on plaintiff's certification detailing certain credits she claims she is due. Defendant argues that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, prior to the possible sale of the house to a third party, in order to challenge the validity of plaintiff's claims. Without such a hearing, defendant maintains he is unable to rationally decide whether he is in a position to purchase plaintiff's interest in the property. We agree.

It is clear from the record before us that the trial court never determined the exact amount of plaintiff's "credits" before directing the sale of the marital property. Without this threshold judicial determination, defendant is unable to rationally decide whether it would be in his best interest to buy out plaintiff's interest. Moreover, defendant is entitled to challenge plaintiff's claims at an evidentiary hearing.

We thus vacate the Family Part's order directing the sale of the marital residence, and remand this matter for the court to determine the exact amount of the credits plaintiff is due from the sale of the home. This determination must be based on the evidence presented at an evidentiary hearing. At this hearing, the trial court should be guided by the overriding goal of equitable distribution: to effect a fair and just division of marital property. Steneken v. Steneken, 183 N.J. 290, 299 (2005).

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

 

The court's order also directed defendant to execute a qualified domestic relations order within five days of the entry of the order. Defendant has not appealed this aspect of the court's order.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3690-05T1

 

February 23, 2007