JI HYENAM v. SUNGTAE KIM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0025-16T1

JIHYE NAM,

              Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SUNGTAE KIM,

          Defendant-Respondent.
________________________________

              Submitted March 15, 2018 – Decided April 4, 2018

              Before Judges Haas and Rothstadt.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County,
              Docket No. FM-09-1246-15.

              Song Law Firm, LLC, attorneys for appellant
              (M. Ari Jacobson, on the briefs).

              Einhorn, Harris, Ascher, Barbarito & Frost,
              PC, attorneys for respondent (Jhanice V.
              Domingo, of counsel and on the brief; Matheu
              D. Nunn, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

        Plaintiff appeals from a July 27, 2016 Dual Final Judgment

of Divorce, which the trial court entered after conducting a five-

day bench trial.         Plaintiff argues the court erred by concluding
that defendant's father gave the parties a loan that needed to be

repaid before equitable distribution of their condominium could

occur, and that plaintiff was not entitled to a share of the value

of stock defendant's father put in defendant's name prior to the

parties' marriage.

     After   reading    the   trial   transcripts    and   reviewing   the

exhibits provided to us, we affirm substantially for the reasons

stated by Judge Nesle A. Rodriguez in her comprehensive written

opinion issued on July 27, 2016.          We add the following comments.

     On this appeal, our review of Judge Rodriquez's decision is

extremely limited.     Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 
205 N.J.
 150, 169 (2011).   We will not disturb her factual findings so long

as they are supported by sufficient credible evidence.          Cesare v.

Cesare, 
154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998).         We owe particular deference to

the judge's evaluation of witness credibility, and to her expertise

in addressing matrimonial issues.         Id. at 412-13.   With regard to

the specific contentions raised by plaintiff in this matter, we

apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing challenges

to an equitable distribution award.         Borodinsky v. Borodinsky, 
162 N.J. Super. 437, 443-44 (App. Div. 1978).

     In her thirty-three page written decision, Judge Rodriguez

made extensive and detailed credibility findings that were central

to her decision on the two equitable distribution issues that are

                                      2                           A-0025-16T1
the subject of plaintiff's appeal.              The judge first found that

defendant's father gave the parties a $670,000 loan, which they

used to purchase a condominium.             Defendant executed a promissory

note memorializing the loan, the agreed upon rate of interest, and

the repayment schedule.           Despite this documentation, plaintiff

claimed the loan was actually a gift and, therefore, did not need

to be repaid by the parties.

      Judge Rodriguez rejected plaintiff's contention, and found

that defendant and his father's testimony concerning the loan was

credible, while plaintiff's assertions were not.              Accordingly, the

judge   ordered     the   parties      to    sell   the    condominium,     repay

defendant's father the money owed him under the promissory note,

and then evenly divide any surplus funds between them.                   Applying

our   deferential      standard   of   review,      we   discern   no   abuse    of

discretion in the judge's reasoned determination.

      Turning     to    the   second        equitable     distribution     issue,

defendant's father owned a company called Intermax, Inc.                    Prior

to the parties' marriage, the father put 27% of his stock in this

company in defendant's name for tax purposes and did not inform

the parties of this transaction.             Plaintiff argued that the stock

should have been treated as marital property subject to equitable

distribution, even though neither she nor defendant learned of

this asset until after plaintiff filed her complaint for divorce.

                                        3                                 A-0025-16T1
Judge Rodriquez found that defendant and his father's testimony

on this point was credible, and ruled the stock was a pre-marital

asset that was not subject to equitable distribution.1 Once again,

we find no basis to interfere with the judge's decision.

     In sum, plaintiff's claims are primarily based on her version

of the facts, which the judge did not credit.        Based on our review

of the record, we conclude that Judge Rodriguez fully and fairly

addressed   the    pertinent   issues,    and     plaintiff's      appellate

arguments   are    without   sufficient   merit     to   warrant    further

discussion here.    R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

     Affirmed.




1
   On the other hand, the judge found that an additional 15% of
Intermax stock that defendant's father put in defendant's name
after the parties' marriage, was marital property subject to
equitable distribution. The judge ordered the parties to retain
an appraiser to determine the value of this stock and then split
the value equally. Plaintiff does not challenge this ruling on
appeal.

                                   4                                 A-0025-16T1