DEBORAH A. DOLL v. PETER P. DOLL

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

DEBORAH A. DOLL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PETER P. DOLL,

Defendant-Respondent.

_______________________________

August 19, 2014

Submitted August 12, 2014 Decided

Before Judges Nugent and Carroll.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, Docket No. FD-15-1427-99.

Deborah A. Doll, appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Deborah A. Doll appeals from an October 11, 2012 Family Part order that required her to pay the $1,809.50 her former husband, defendant Peter P. Doll, incurred to oppose a motion plaintiff filed in New Jersey involving child support. We affirm.

The parties were married in Florida in 1994 and divorced there in 1997. They have one son. The lengthy litigation between the parties concerning custody and child support began in 1996. In June 2000, defendant was awarded residential custody of the parties' son and plaintiff was compelled to pay child support. By September 2004, it had become firmly and finally established that Florida had jurisdiction over all issues of custody and visitation, and that New Jersey lacked jurisdiction over those issues.

Notwithstanding New Jersey's lack of jurisdiction over custody and child support issues, plaintiff has persisted in filing motions in New Jersey. In October 2008, when plaintiff filed a motion in New Jersey to change jurisdiction from Florida, a Family Part judge included this paragraph in his order denying her motion:

Plaintiff's motion is frivolous. If she continues to ignore prior orders of this court with similar filings, the court will, pursuant to Rule 1:4-8 3(c), on its own initiative, impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct.

In a statement of reasons supporting the order, the judge noted that "[i]n her current motion, plaintiff again seeks to have New Jersey courts exercise jurisdiction on custody and visitation issues in this case when we have declined to do so on three prior occasions in favor of the State of Florida."

Notwithstanding that New Jersey lacks jurisdiction over custody and child support issues, on June 27, 2012, plaintiff filed in the Ocean County Family Part a motion to stay enforcement of a child support order because "there is a motion waiting to be heard regarding child support reduction and an income deduction order by the 2nd District Appellate Court of Florida . . . ." Defendant filed a cross-motion for counsel fees and sanctions, after which plaintiff sought to withdraw her motion. Ultimately, Judge Stephanie M. Wauters granted defendant's cross-motion and awarded him counsel fees.

We affirm Judge Wauters' order substantially for the reasons set forth in her October 11, 2012 written decision. Judge Wauters appropriately cited Rule 4:42-9(a)(1), N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, and relevant case law as authorizing the award of counsel fees in Family Part actions. The judge explained the factors, enumerated in those sources, that a court must consider when determining whether it should exercise its discretion to award counsel fees; and properly applied those factors to the facts of the motions before her. There is no support in the record whatsoever for plaintiff's argument that Judge Wauters abused her discretion when she awarded counsel fees to defendant. Plaintiff's arguments warrant no further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.