SASIRE KHAMAGUDAPATHI v. RANGARAJAN R. CALYANAKOTI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2106-16T2

SASIREKHA MAGUDAPATHI,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RANGARAJAN R. CALYANAKOTI,

     Defendant-Respondent.
______________________________

              Submitted February 7, 2018 – Decided March 13, 2018

              Before Judges Currier and Geiger.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset
              County, Docket No. FM-18-0639-15.

              Deborah A. Rose, attorney for appellant.

              Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

        Plaintiff, Sasirekha Magudapathi, appeals from the provision

of a November 15, 2016 order denying her application to enforce

an equitable distribution term in the parties' marital settlement

agreement (MSA). Because we find that the Family Part judge placed
a burden on plaintiff to provide documents and proofs not in her

possession or control, we reverse.

     Since the parties divorced in October 2015, they have filed

numerous   post-judgment     motions       for   enforcement      of    various

provisions of the MSA.     The subject of this appeal is plaintiff's

motion to compel defendant, Rangarajan Calyanakoti, to provide her

share of the equitable distribution of several bank accounts.

Defendant's CIS reflected a joint bank account held with plaintiff

and two other accounts in his name only.1            The MSA required all

bank accounts and assets to be divided equally.

     During   oral   argument    before    the   trial   court,    the     self-

represented parties discussed their myriad of disputes.                      When

asked about the two bank accounts, defendant did not provide a

direct answer, but advised the court that he had statements for

the two accounts.    In a November 15, 2016 order, the judge denied

plaintiff's   application,      stating:    "Plaintiff   has   produced         no

objective proof that their assets were not already equitably

distributed at the time of the divorce."

     With plaintiff's subsequent motion for reconsideration, she

attached defendant's CIS indicating two accounts open in his name,

one of which he estimated held $35,000 in January 2015.                Defendant


1
   Plaintiff clarified during oral argument that she was seeking
the equitable distribution of only defendant's two accounts.

                                     2                                   A-2106-16T2
responded in a certification that the parties had split the

accounts "in preparation of the divorce."          The judge ruled that

            [Plaintiff] has not provided the [c]ourt with
            any objective proof that these items were not
            equitably distributed, such as a copy of the
            parties' MSA or any document that shows what
            items were subject to equitable distribution
            and divided between the parties at the time
            of the divorce. . . . Moreover, Plaintiff has
            had possession of Defendant's CIS prior to
            entering the DJOD. This negates, objectively,
            any claim that Defendant was hiding the funds
            in the accounts enumerated by Plaintiff
            because they were clearly listed in his CIS.

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied.

     Although mindful of the substantial deference we accord to a

Family Part judge's findings of fact, we are constrained to find

that the issued orders did not address plaintiff's very specific

argument.   It is undisputed that defendant had sole access to the

two accounts in his name.      Therefore, plaintiff could not provide

proofs to the court as to the status of those accounts.          Plaintiff

did not contend that defendant was "hiding" the monies in those

accounts; she asserted rather that he had not distributed her

share pursuant to the MSA.     Defendant's dismissive approach of the

issue during oral argument and in his responding certifications

is unacceptable.    He must provide the statements he concedes he

possesses   to   demonstrate    his   compliance    with   the   equitable

distribution of the two accounts.


                                      3                            A-2106-16T2
      It was an abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff's request for

the equitable distribution of the bank accounts controlled solely

by defendant.      We, therefore, reverse these relevant portions of

the   applicable    orders   and   remand   for   the   entry   of   an   order

requiring defendant to produce to plaintiff the pertinent bank

statements demonstrating the alleged distribution to her of his

accounts.

      Reversed and remanded.       We do not retain jurisdiction.




                                      4                               A-2106-16T2