NORMAN L. SCOTT, SR v. TRINA SCOTT

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-00717-12T4

NORMAN L. SCOTT, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TRINA SCOTT,

Defendant-Respondent.

May 12, 2014

Submitted February 12, 2014 Decided

Before Judges Lihotz and Hoffman.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, Docket No. FM-04-400-07.

Norman L. Scott, Sr., appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

In this appeal, plaintiff seeks reversal of the August 30, 2012 Family Part order, granting defendant's post-judgment motion requiring plaintiff to "pay for fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the children's extracurricular activities and fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the children's after-school care." Plaintiff claims he "should receive a plenary hearing[,]" contending a miscommunication caused him to miss the motion hearing. Because plaintiff failed to articulate the error he assigns to the motion judge's ruling, and also failed to include in his appendix the requisite documents to inform our appellate review, we dismiss the appeal.

We glean the following facts from the limited record before us. The parties were divorced in 2007 and are the parents of twins, who were nine years old in 2012. Both children reside with defendant, with plaintiff paying $175 weekly in child support. Defendant's motion sought an increase in child support, which the court denied, and assistance in paying for the children's extracurricular activities and after-school care, which the court granted. The transcript of the motion hearing provides no indication plaintiff submitted any opposition to the motion.

Rule 2:6-1(a)(1) requires an appellant's appendix include "such . . . parts of the record . . . as are essential to the proper consideration of the issues, including such parts as the appellant should reasonably assume will be relied upon by the respondent . . . ." Here, plaintiff's appendix provides no information as to what was provided to the motion judge; nor does plaintiff's brief substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 2:6-2. Rather, plaintiff's appendix merely contains copies of his notice of appeal, the order under review, and the last page of plaintiff's July 2012 cell phone bill, indicating he received a telephone call from the Camden vicinage on July 27, 2012. In plaintiff's brief, he points to his cell phone bill as proof he received a telephone call from the court on August 27, 2012 "notifying him not to report for the hearing on the 30th of August, but to report on the 28th of September, because the judge had just gotten back from vacation . . . ."

Plaintiff's July telephone bill obviously provides no proof of a telephone call allegedly received one month later. Regardless, before a litigant appeals a ruling based upon an alleged miscommunication, the issue must first be presented to the motion court for consideration and to decide if there is a basis for rehearing the motion. See Solondz v. Kornmehl, 317 N.J. Super. 16, 22 (App. Div. 1998) (citing Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973)) ("Appellate courts rightly decline to consider questions or issues not presented to the trial court when an opportunity to do so was available unless the questions so raised on appeal go to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest.") The record contains no evidence plaintiff tried to inform the court of the alleged miscommunication causing him not to appear at the August 30, 2012 hearing, or otherwise seek a rehearing.

Plaintiff, as a self-represented appellant, is held to the same standard for compliance with our court rules as a litigant represented by counsel. Rubin v. Rubin, 188 N.J. Super. 155, 159 (App. Div. 1982). While procedural deficiencies should not serve as a sword to deny relief, where the deficiencies impact meaningful appellate review, dismissal is appropriate. In re Zakhari, 330 N.J. Super. 493, 495 (App. Div. 2000). Such is the situation here where, for example, the appendix does not contain any motion papers submitted to the judge, nor other related documents, such as defendant's prior and current Case Information Statements, all of which must accompany any motion for post-judgment relief. See Rule 5:5-4(a).

Dismissed.