FRANCES J. HOFFMAN v. BRUCE W. HOFFMAN

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4259-07T24259-07T2

FRANCES J. HOFFMAN,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BRUCE W. HOFFMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________

 

Argued March 9, 2009 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Alvarez.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, Docket No. FM-13-908-98A.

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

Benjamin M. Hoffman argued the cause for respondent (Jacobowitz, Defino, Latimer & O'Toole, attorneys; Frances J. Hoffman, on the pro se brief).

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal by defendant Bruce W. Hoffman from an order of the Family Part denying his application for a de novo trial on equitable distribution and a stay or termination of child support and alimony orders. These financial obligations were imposed on him by way of an agreement incorporated into the parties' January 19, 2000 final judgment of divorce. As plaintiff Frances J. Hoffman points out in her appellate brief, defendant has filed multiple post-judgment applications and appeals essentially reiterating the same arguments. We affirm.

In addition to continuing to attempt to vacate the property settlement agreement incorporated into the final judgment of divorce as to alimony and child support, defendant now seeks to vacate a wage attachment issued against him. His reasons are the same as those previously asserted and ruled upon by Family Court judges as well as in our unpublished opinion, Hoffman v. Hoffman, No. A-986-03 (App. Div. May 27, 2004). Those reasons are, briefly stated, that the property settlement agreement was unconscionable, and that he can afford neither the child support nor the alimony based on changed circumstances.

As we have previously stated, defendant has no factual support for his claims. See ibid. Other than in a conclusory fashion, he does not proffer any reasons that warrant the relief that he seeks.

Defendant continues to dispute the financial terms of the final judgment of divorce, unwilling to accept that he has not established any basis that warrants a plenary hearing, much less any modification. We affirm essentially for the reasons stated in our prior unpublished opinion and Judge Flynn's oral decision issued March 20, 2008. Defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4259-07T2

June 1, 2009