KAREN LEFF v. ALAN LEFF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

KAREN LEFF,

Plaintiff-Appellant/

Cross-Respondent,

v.

ALAN LEFF,

Defendant-Respondent/

Cross-Appellant.

____________________________________________________

December 16, 2015

Argued December 1, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Fisher, Espinosa and Currier.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hunterdon County, Docket No. FM-10-314-06.

Karen Leff, appellant/cross-respondent, argued the cause pro se.

Alan Leff, respondent/cross-appellant, argued the cause pro se (William A. Teltser, on the brief).1

PER CURIAM

The parties were married in 1981. Four children were born of the marriage; the youngest is now twenty-four years old. This divorce action was commenced in 2006. In 2007, the parties advised the trial court that they had orally agreed to an equal division of their property subject to certain excepted assets. Counsel for defendant Alan Leff drafted a written agreement; according to findings later rendered by the trial judge, plaintiff Karen Leff "had second thoughts" regarding distribution of a $125,000 bank account, ownership of life insurance policies, and disposition of accounts maintained for the children's education ("the 529 accounts"). Disputes about the alleged settlement prompted a seven-day plenary hearing. In resolving the disputes, the judge determined that Alan had failed to sustain his burden of persuasion regarding his right to all or part of the $125,000 account and that the parties agreed Karen would retain ownership of the life insurance policies. And, despite the agreement to arbitrate disputes concerning the 529 accounts, the judge determined that each spouse should be named the alternate participant in the other's 529 account. On July 26, 2007, the judge entered a dual judgment of divorce, which memorialized the parties' agreement and his additional findings.

Alan appealed the judge's determinations regarding the $125,000 account, the life insurance policies, and the judge's resolution of the disputes concerning the 529 accounts when those disputes should have been sent to arbitration. Alan also argued that the judge failed to address Karen's interest in property in Massachusetts, and he asserted that the $82,502.45 counsel fee award in Karen's favor was inequitable considering both parties had received approximately $3,000,000 in equitable distribution.

By way of an unpublished opinion, we reversed in part and remanded for further findings on a number of discrete issues. Leff v. Leff, No. A-1856-07 (App. Div. Mar. 26, 2009) (slip op. at 12).

In that opinion, we first concluded the judge incorrectly viewed the $125,000 account as immune from distribution, and we remanded for a determination of whether Alan was entitled to the account, or any part of it, pursuant to the parties' agreement to equally divide their assets. Id. at 8-9. For reasons set forth in a written decision, the trial judge rejected Alan's contentions about this account.

With regard to the life insurance policies, we explained in our earlier opinion how the record on appeal precluded our understanding of the parties' contentions, and we remanded for further consideration. Id. at 10. The trial judge responded to this by concluding that the evidence compelled a conclusion that the life insurance policies were to remain Karen's property.

The judge, as required by our mandate, directed that the disputes concerning the 529 accounts be arbitrated. He later confirmed the arbitrator's award by way of a written decision.

The judge also determined on the basis of evidence presented about the Massachusetts property that Alan was entitled to a fifty percent share of Karen's partial interest in that property.

Lastly, in vacating the counsel-fee award entered in favor of Karen, we directed that fees be reconsidered upon disposition of the remand issues. Id. at 12. The judge reinstated his counsel-fee award for reasons expressed in his written opinion.

After disposition of the last of these issues, as well as the additional proceedings triggered by the determination of some of those issues, Karen appealed. She argues

I. THE TRIAL COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS PROPERTY WAS A MISINTERPRE-TATION OF THE APPELLATE COURT'S REMAND TO MAKE FINDINGS AND OTHERWISE ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN [CON]FIRMING ARBITRATOR'S DECISION REGARDING FUNDS TRANSFERS BETWEEN IRC 529 EDUCATION FUNDS FBO THE LEFF CHILDREN.

Alan filed a cross-appeal. He argues in support of his cross-appeal

I. THE TRIAL COURT'S ALLOCATION OF LIFE INSURANCE WAS CONTRARY TO THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT FOR ASSET DISTRIBUTION.

II. THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO RECTIFY ITS ERROR WITH RESPECT [TO] THE $125,000 ISSUE WAS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND TO THE LAW.

III. THE TRIAL COURT'S AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES WAS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND EQUITIES OF THE CASE.

After closely examining the record on appeal, we find insufficient merit in the parties' arguments to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

We add only that, with respect to her second point, Karen has failed to demonstrate that any of the statutory grounds for setting aside the arbitrator's award were present here. In acknowledging that judicial review of an arbitration award is narrow, Fawzy v. Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456, 470 (2009), we affirm the confirmation of that award substantially for the reasons set forth in the trial judge's written opinion.

Our consideration of the remaining issues was guided by and our intervention now precluded by the familiar standard of review that a trial judge's factual findings are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998).

Affirmed.

1 By way of a substitution of attorney that occurred after the brief was filed, Alan Leff superseded the firm of William A. Teltser, as counsel in this appeal.