FRANCES J. HOFFMAN v. BRUCE HOFFMAN

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4509-05T14509-05T1

FRANCES J. HOFFMAN,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BRUCE W. HOFFMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

 

Argued April 23, 2007 - Decided May 4, 2007

Before Judges S.L. Reisner and C.L. Miniman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, FM-13-908-98A.

Bruce W. Hoffman, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Benjamin Hoffman argued the cause for respondent (Jacobowitz, Defino, Latimer, Fradkin, Comer & O'Toole, attorneys;

Darren O'Toole, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This appeal arises from post-judgment matrimonial proceedings. Defendant, Bruce Hoffman, appeals from a trial court order filed March 24, 2006, approving the accounting of a receiver for the period between January 14, 2004 and January 12, 2006, awarding the receiver counsel fees and approving the receiver's proposal to place $200,000 from the receivership account into an investment plan. We affirm.

By way of background, the parties were divorced pursuant to a final judgment of divorce dated January 19, 2000. On September 5, 2003, the trial court denied defendant's motion to set aside the property settlement agreement which was incorporated in the divorce judgment. We affirmed the trial court's order. Hoffman v. Hoffman, No. A-986-03 (App. Div. May 27, 2004).

Under the terms of a January 14, 2004 order, the trial court appointed a receiver to marshal defendant's assets and pay his child support obligations because defendant refused to pay child support. On February 22, 2006, the receiver filed a motion seeking advice and direction concerning the investment of receivership funds. The receiver detailed the assets in the receivership account and sought court approval of a plan to invest $200,000 of the funds. The plan had been recommended by an investment broker and approved by plaintiff, Frances Hoffman. The application included a written investment proposal from the broker, documenting the prudent nature of the proposed investment. The court approved the application in an order dated March 24, 2006.

Defendant's brief raises the following issues:

POINT I: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THAT HIS OPINION WAS NOT EXPLICIT IN HIS RECITAL OF THE EVIDENCE AND AT THE SAME TIME IGNORING ALL PROOFS THAT THE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED.

POINT II: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HIS RELIANCE ON PAST RULINGS WHICH WERE THE PRODUCT OF THE PLAINTIFF'S PURPOSEFUL FRAUD, DECEIT AND CONCEALMENT.

POINT III: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT RELAXING THE RULES WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE ESSENTIAL FAIRNESS.

While defendant's brief is not entirely coherent, his arguments are not directed at the March 24, 2006 order on appeal, but rather appear to challenge earlier court decisions made in 2004 and the outcome of a proceeding on June 30, 2006. In his brief and reply brief, he also appears to be attempting to re-litigate prior efforts to set aside the divorce property settlement. Nothing in defendant's briefs explains why we should disturb the trial court's March 24, 2006 order. We conclude that defendant's appellate contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

 

By order dated April 21, 2006, the court denied defendant's cross-motion; that order is not the subject of defendant's notice of appeal and therefore we do not address it.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-4509-05T1

May 4, 2007