VASSOS MARANGOS v. ANSELL, ZARO, GRIMM & AARON, P.C.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5054-05T55054-05T5

VASSOS MARANGOS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANSELL, ZARO, GRIMM &

AARON, P.C.,

Defendant-Respondent.

 

Argued March 28, 2007 - Decided April 18, 2007

Before Judges Winkelstein and Fuentes.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, L-979-06.

Vassos Marangos argued the cause pro se.

John L. Slimm argued the cause for respondent (Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, attorneys; Mr. Slimm, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Vassos Marangos (Marangos) appeals from a May 26, 2006 order dismissing his complaint against defendant. We affirm.

Plaintiff's complaint arose out of defendant's representation of plaintiff's former wife, Cecily Marangos, in a divorce proceeding in Monmouth County. A final judgment of divorce was entered in that action on January 17, 2006. In his appeal from that judgment, Marangos raised the following points:

I. JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND A TRIAL OR MODIFICATION GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF FRAUD.

A. Misrepresenting the period of separation.

B. Judgment set aside on misrepresentation.

c. Bribery to Parenting Time Evaluator.

II. ORDER OF MARCH 31, 2006 SHOULD BE VACATED ON THE BASIS OF FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION AND ABUSE OF PROCESS.

A. Ulterior motive of plaintiff's motion.

B. Deceptive tactic with arrears.

III. UNCONSCIONABILITY IN ENFORCING JUDGMENT.

A. Children's tuition using IRA funds.

B. Plaintiff's imputed income.

C. Plaintiff causing $104,000 in damages.

D. Traveling expenses to visit the children.

E. Turning joint custody into sole.

F. Preventing contact with Greek relatives.

IV. MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT IS WARRANTED ON THE BASIS OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES.

We affirmed. See Marangos v. Marangos, No. A-3225-05 (App. Div. Dec. 6, 2006).

While that appeal was pending, plaintiff filed the instant litigation against defendant. In the complaint, he claimed that defendant had engaged in "unethical and illegal conduct"; that defendant was guilty of "Bribery, Fraud, False Court filings, premeditated actions to commit Fraud and Conspiracy to abuse and misuse domestic violence laws that caused the destruction of the life of the plaintiff and the intentional and malicious victimization of the plaintiff's four (4) innocent children." He further asserted that defendant (1) colluded with plaintiff's ex-wife "to devise a series of premeditated actions that can only be termed crimes against children"; (2) "intentionally, willfully and maliciously submitted to the court a number of false filings"; (3) "bribed the Parenting Time Evaluator"; and (4) "is guilty of extortion for naming the plaintiff's start-up company in the divorce papers to blackmail him." Plaintiff further asserts that "[f]oul play is also suspected in the real estate appraisals ordered by the defendant."

Defendant responded to plaintiff's complaint with a motion to dismiss based on the pleadings. The Law Division judge granted defendant's motion in a May 25, 2006 decision from the bench, which he memorialized in an order of that date. It is from that decision that plaintiff now appeals, raising the following issues:

POINT I

THE DISMISSAL SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT IGNORED EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTED PLAINTIFF'S (VALID) CLAIM OF BRIBERY.

POINT II

THE DISMISSAL SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT IGNORED EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTED PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF CONSPIRACY INVOLVING THIRD PARTIES.

POINT III

AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE AND OWE [sic] NO DUTY TO NON-CLIENT DO NOT APPLY WHEN FRAUD AND UNLAWFUL ACTIONS CAUSE HARM TO NON-CLIENTS.

POINT IV

DISMISSAL SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE COURT'S ROLE TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE.

Though defendant was not a party to the divorce litigation, many of the issues raised in this case were raised by plaintiff and rejected by the court in the prior litigation. Nevertheless, we have carefully considered plaintiff's arguments in light of the record and controlling law. We consider his arguments to be without merit and they do not warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Consequently, we affirm the order dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

Affirmed.

 

Defendant made a Rule 2:6-11 submission to this court of the opinion affirming plaintiff's final judgment of divorce, Marangos v. Marangos, supra, No. A-3225-05. Marangos responded that subsequent to the final judgment of divorce, the trial court addressed cross-motions by plaintiff and his former spouse; and that he has filed a lawsuit in federal court for civil rights violations "stemming from the events of the March 2006 motions." The results of those motions are not before us.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-5054-05T5

April 18, 2007