Thisopinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the ROBIN PARNESS, n/k/a ROBIN PARNESS LIPSON v. MARTIN PARNESS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-1738-15T2

ROBIN PARNESS, n/k/a ROBIN
PARNESS LIPSON,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MARTIN PARNESS,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________

              Submitted November 8, 2017 – Decided December 18, 2017

              Before Judges Reisner, Hoffman and Gilson.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County,
              Docket No. FM-07-8088-91.

              Martin Parness, appellant pro se.

              Robin Parness Lipson, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

        This appeal arises from efforts by plaintiff Robin Parness

Lipson to collect a final judgment for alimony and child support,

entered by the Family Part against defendant Martin Parness.                       Due

to his refusal to pay the judgment or to comply with court orders
directing that he take specific steps to enable plaintiff to

collect the judgment, defendant was found in civil contempt and

has spent years in the Essex County Jail.            In 2014, we remanded

this matter to the trial court and directed that the court conduct

a   testimonial   Matthei    hearing,   at   which    defendant   must    be

represented by counsel.      Parness-Lipson v. Parness, No. A-2221-13

(App. Div. June 6, 2014) (slip op. at 7); see Marshall v. Matthei,


327 N.J. Super. 512, 529 (App. Div. 2000).       Defendant now appeals

from a November 16, 2015 order entered after the Matthei hearing.

      The November 16, 2015 order sets forth a series of specific

actions defendant must take to obtain his release.           Based on his

evaluation of lay and expert testimony at the hearing, the Family

Part judge determined that defendant has the ability to pay the

judgment, or at least, he has the ability to take specific steps

to permit collection.       In particular, the judge determined that

the actions specified in the order were necessary to enable

plaintiff to locate and sell defendant's assets in Israel.             Upon

compliance with those steps, or in the alternative, upon posting

a $250,000 bond, defendant will be released.

      Unfortunately, defendant's appellate brief does not address

the merits of the November 16, 2015 order, but instead seeks to

challenge an earlier order which is final and no longer subject



                                    2                              A-1738-15T2
to appeal.1   In particular, defendant's brief addresses a July 11,

2011 judgment quantifying his support arrears and other amounts.

Defendant previously filed an appeal from the July 11, 2011

judgment, but he failed to properly pursue that appeal and we

ordered that the appeal be dismissed.   Parness v. Parness, No. A-

0111-11, order dated July 9, 2012.       The Supreme Court denied

defendant's petition for certification, thus bringing that appeal

to an end.    Parness v. Parness, 
213 N.J. 537 (2013).   As we made

clear in our opinion remanding this case for the Matthei hearing,

defendant "has no further right to appeal the underlying judgment."

Parness-Lipson, slip op. at 8.2   The only open issue on remand was

whether he had the ability to pay the judgment or at least to take

specific steps to enable plaintiff to collect it.

      Although defendant's appellate arguments are not cognizable

on this appeal because they do not address the order from which

he is appealing, in the interests of justice we have reviewed the

transcripts of the Matthei hearing.      Based on that review, we



1
   Although he was represented by counsel at the Matthei hearing,
defendant chose to represent himself on this appeal. After the
case was fully briefed, and neither party had requested oral
argument, defendant filed a motion seeking appointment of counsel.
We denied the motion as untimely.
2
  At the hearing, plaintiff presented expert legal testimony that,
under Israeli law, a foreign judgment cannot be enforced until it
is final and all appeals are concluded.

                                  3                         A-1738-15T2
conclude that the Family Part judge's decision is supported by

substantial credible evidence, and we find no basis to disturb the

November 16, 2015 order.       See Cesare v. Cesare, 
154 N.J. 394, 411-

12 (1998).     We affirm for the reasons stated in the Family Part

judge's comprehensive written opinion.          Under the terms of the

November 16, 2015 order, defendant holds the "key to the jail" in

his hand.    See Matthei, 
327 N.J. Super. at 528.           We note that

during the hearing, defendant testified that he would abide by the

court's orders in the future.        Hopefully, he will do so and secure

his release.

     If defendant continues to be incarcerated, he is entitled to

future   Matthei   hearings,    at   least   every   eighteen   months,    to

determine whether he should be released.         Id. at 529.

     Affirmed.




                                      4                             A-1738-15T2