ARTI SAHNI v. RAJIV KHANNA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3526-09T2

ARTI SAHNI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RAJIV KHANNA,

Defendant-Respondent.

_____________________________________________________

November 9, 2011

Argued October 18, 2011 - Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Nugent.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Mercer County, Docket No. FM-11-10-03D.

Arti Sahni, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Rajiv Khanna, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

PER CURIAM

We discern from her pro se brief that plaintiff Arti Sahni has appealed those parts of a post-judgment matrimonial order entered on March 5, 2010, which: "deemed invalid" her efforts to change the name of the parties' youngest son; modified the amount of child support due her; and established the percentage of defendant Khanna's share of college expenses incurred by their oldest son. We find no merit in plaintiff's arguments and affirm.

The record reveals that the parties were married in 1991. Two children were born of the marriage; the oldest child, whose college expenses are at issue in this appeal, was born in 1992 and the youngest, whose name is at issue, was born in 1995. The parties were divorced by judgment entered in 1997.

The judgment of divorce hardly ended this litigation as demonstrated by the constant barrage of motions since filed. For example, on February 15, 2006, the Family Part judge then assigned to the case observed that the parties had filed sixteen post-judgment motions since 1997. Applications regarding the youngest child's name were filed as early as 2001.

Plaintiff's arguments regarding the March 5, 2010 order are contained in a one-point brief with the following heading:

THERE WAS NO SCHEDULING OR NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A MOTION FOR RECALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT. AS SUCH FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THIS PART OF THE ORDER TO BE INVALIDATED OR VACATED. [THE YOUNGEST CHILD] SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO HAVE HIS NAME CORRECTED REFLECTED IN ALL DOCUMENTS IN USA SINCE DEFENDANT MOVED TO ENFORCE A MOTION THAT HE HIMSELF VIOLATED AND SO HIS MOTION WAS IN BAD FAITH. COURT ORDERS HAVE ALSO REFLECTED THE NAME INCONSISTENTLY SINCE 1997, SO THERE IS NO "GOOD FAITH" REASON TO DEPRIVE [THE YOUNGEST CHILD] OF HIS PRIVILEGES.

We have closely examined the record on appeal and conclude that all plaintiff's arguments have insufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).