NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3098-23
ESTATE OF R.J.E. by S.E., administratrix,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
R.I.E.,
Defendant-Appellant. _______________________
Submitted October 16, 2025 – Decided June 9, 2026
Before Judges Gummer and Paganelli.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County, Docket No. FM-18-0336-19.
DeTommaso Law Group, attorneys for appellant (Joseph M. Freda, III, on the briefs).
Hendricks & Hendricks, attorneys for respondent (Patricia M. Love, on the brief).
PER CURIAM In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, defendant R.I.E. appeals from
a provision in a December 19, 2023 order imposing sanctions on her and the trial
court's subsequent denial of her motion to vacate that sanctions award. 1 Because
we perceive no abuse of discretion or legal error, we affirm.
I.
The parties are familiar with the extensive factual and procedural
background of this matter. Thus, we focus on information related to this appeal.
Roger and Rita married in 1995. Roger filed for divorce in 2018.
Following a trial, the court entered a Dual Judgment of Divorce (DJOD) on
March 12, 2020, which the court amended on July 16, 2020, to correct a
"scrivener's error." Rita appealed. We affirmed. See R.J.E., slip op. at 2. Roger
died on July 7, 2021, while the appeal was pending. In 2022, Roger's daughter,
S.E. or Sarah, became the administrator of his estate (the Estate).
The parties continued litigating the DJOD's financial provisions, with the
Estate filing multiple motions to enforce litigant's rights. In an August 19, 2022
order, the court directed Rita to cooperate with the listing of the marital home
1 We use initials or pseudonyms for the parties and others involved in this case to protect the privacy of the parties and consistent with opinions we issued in prior appeals involving these parties. See Est. of R.J.E. v. R.I.E., No. A-3218- 21 (App. Div. June 15, 2023); R.J.E. v. R.I.E., No. A-4592-19 (App. Div. Aug. 24, 2021). For ease of reading, we refer to R.J.E. as Roger and R.I.E. as Rita. A-3098-23 2 for sale and "to provide all necessary information about her retirement accounts
for the completion of [qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs)]."2 The
court imposed a $200 daily sanction for noncompliance. In an accompanying
statement of reasons, the court found Rita had taken no action to sell the marital
home "[d]espite the clear mandates of the DJOD" and a May 9, 2022 order and
that she had "no justification for [her] failure to comply."
In a January 27, 2023 order, the court required Rita to "immediately
cooperate with [the designated realtor] to prepare and list the home [for sale] by
March 3, 2023," and to provide by February 10, 2023, "all necessary information
about her retirement accounts for the completion of QDROs" and proof of
beneficiary designations; imposed on Rita a $200 daily penalty for every day
after March 3 the marital real property remained unlisted, "unless through no
fault of her own," and for every day after February 10 she failed to provide the
required information; awarded a $26,400 judgment to the Estate for Rita's failure
to provide the QDRO information required by the August 19, 2022 order; and
awarded the Estate $2,018.75 in counsel fees and costs. In an accompanying
2 A QDRO "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternative payee's right to, or assigns to an alternative payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a [pension] plan." Orlowski v. Orlowski, 459 N.J. Super. 95, 104-05 (App. Div. 2019) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)). A-3098-23 3 statement of reasons, the court found Rita had "remain[ed] non-compliant with
the DJOD and the May 9, 2022 [o]rder" and had "no justification" for her
"failure to comply with previous [o]rders."
On June 5, 2023, the court entered a consent order executed by the parties
and their counsel in which Rita agreed to pay the Estate $300,000 from her
retirement assets within thirty days of entry of the consent order, after which all
obligations would be deemed satisfied. Specifically, paragraph four of the
consent order provided:
In full and complete satisfaction of any and all obligations due and owing in connection with the [DJOD], the Amended [DJOD], or subsequent [c]ourt [o]rders and [j]udgments, [Rita] shall transfer the sum of $300,000.00 to [the Estate] from her retirement assets through [a QDRO] to ensure that there is no taxable impact to [Rita] and/or future tax-exchange rates associated with [Rita's] transfer. [Rita] has retained the services of Judith Deer from All Pro QDRO, PO Box 1600, Livingston, New Jersey 07309, 973-716-9777 to prepare the necessary documentation to ensure the transfer of these funds to [the Estate] within thirty (30) days of the entry of the within [c]onsent [o]rder.
[(Emphasis added).]
The parties agreed to withdraw all pending motions and that "all financial
litigation shall be deemed concluded." Rita also agreed to withdraw her pending
A-3098-23 4 appeal and a caveat she had filed regarding a will. See Est. of R.J.E., slip op.
at 2.
Rita's counsel submitted to the court a draft QDRO for a Nassau Personal
Protection Choice Annuity account, and the court executed and entered it on
June 5, 2023. The QDRO named Rita as the "Participant/Annuitant" and Roger
as the "Alternate Payee." The QDRO contained the following provision in
paragraph seventeen:
For purposes of Sections 402(a)(l) and 72 of the Internal Revenue Code, any Alternate Payee who is the spouse or former spouse of the Annuitant shall be treated as the distributee of any distribution or payment made to the Alternate Payee under terms of this [o]rder, and as such, will be required to pay the appropriate federal income taxes on such distribution. The Alternate Payee's Estate shall be responsible for the payment of all taxes incurred by reason of any benefits paid to the Alternate Payee's Estate under this [o]rder. The Alternate Payee's Estate shall be provided with appropriate tax information so as to enable the Alternate Payee's Estate to report and pay applicable tax.
In sum, pursuant to the consent order and the QDRO, Rita had to transfer
$300,000 from her retirement assets to the Estate by July 5, 2023. The Estate
would have been responsible for the tax payments associated with the transfer
had it occurred. However, it did not occur.
A-3098-23 5 By September 2023, Rita had not made the $300,000 payment. On
September 11, 2023, the applicable plan administrator advised the Estate's
counsel that Rita had failed to provide necessary documentation for the transfer
and, in the meantime, had been receiving monthly payments from the account.
On September 21, 2023, the Estate filed another motion to enforce litigant's
rights, seeking entry of a $300,000 judgment "representing the unpaid
settlement" amount set forth in the consent order, a judgment awarding the
sanctions imposed in the January 27, 2023 order, Sarah's designation as power
of attorney to sell the marital home, and a counsel-fee award.
Rita opposed the motion and cross-moved, seeking an order: denying the
Estate's motion; compelling the annuity company and immediately transfer
ownership of the annuity to the Estate purportedly in compliance with the
QDRO; and holding the Estate responsible for any surrender charges associated
with the surrender of the annuity if the annuity company refused to transfer it
and for any taxes incurred in connection with the surrender of the annuity.
In a certification she submitted in support of the cross-motion, Rita
asserted she had "done everything required of [her]" in the consent order, but
that the annuity company had failed to transfer the annuity and was requiring a
formal surrender of it. Rita maintained the Estate was acting in bad faith and
A-3098-23 6 was attempting to alter the terms of the consent order and QDRO by compelling
her to surrender the annuity, thereby imposing on her financial obligations the
Estate had agreed to assume. She blamed the annuity company's purported
change in position, rather than her own actions, for "holding up the process."
At the November 3, 2023 oral argument, the Estate's counsel advised the
court Rita still had not made the $300,000 payment. Rita's counsel attributed
the payment delay to an "institutional issue" with the annuity company rather
than Rita's conduct. He suggested the court amend the QDRO to state explicitly
that the annuity company must transfer the annuity in full. The Estate's counsel
objected, contending the consent order provided for payment "of the sum of
$300,000," not the transfer of a financial product.
The court entered a December 19, 2023 order accompanied by a statement
of reasons. The court granted and entered a $300,000 judgment against Rita and
in favor of the Estate. The court found Rita had not contacted the annuity
company "until well after the deadline to transfer the funds to [the Estate] under
the June 5, 2023 [c]onsent [o]rder"; had "sat on her hands and delayed the
transfer of $300,000 to [the Estate], consistent with [the Estate]'s claims
throughout the litigation that [Rita] ha[d] obstructed and delayed at every turn";
and had not complied with the consent order. The court rejected Rita's counsel's
A-3098-23 7 suggestion to amend the QDRO, finding the Estate was entitled to a cash
payment, "not an investment instrument." The court held that "[a]ny surrender
charges and tax consequences are the sole responsibility of [Rita] for sitting on
her hands and for knowingly entering into a [c]onsent [o]rder, perhaps before
understanding the full consequences in transferring $300,000 from [the]
annuity."
The court also reduced the sanctions from the January 27, 2023 order to a
$30,000 judgment against Rita to be imposed if she failed to pay the $300,000
judgment by March 1, 2024. The court found the marital property remained
unlisted for sale, Rita had not established that failure was "through no fault of
her own," and Rita "continue[d] to fail to cooperate with the sale of the marital
home." The court granted Sarah limited power of attorney regarding the sale of
the marital home. The court also found Rita had not provided the required
information to the Estate's counsel and had not offered any evidence explaining
why she had been unable to provide that information. The court also awarded
the Estate $2,206.25 in counsel fees and costs, to be paid by January 5, 2024.
On Rita's cross-motion, the court ordered the annuity company to transfer
$300,000 from the annuity to the Estate, "with [Rita] being solely responsible
A-3098-23 8 for any surrender charges or costs of transfer including adverse tax
consequences." The court otherwise denied the cross-motion.
Following a conference with counsel, the court entered a January 10, 2024
order with an accompanying statement of reasons, suspending the provision
regarding the limited power of attorney until March 1, 2024, and directing the
parties' counsel to "jointly contact" the annuity company by January 16, 2024,
"to discuss surrender and/or payment of the annuity, now thought to be less than
the $300,000, to be paid to [the Estate] and any potential consequences,
understanding [Rita] owes [the Estate] $300,000."
Rita did not meet the March 1, 2024 deadline. On March 18, 2024, the
Estate applied for an order to show cause, seeking an order compelling Rita to
cooperate with the realtor's scheduled showings of the marital home and to
disarm the alarm system during the showings and enjoining her from declining
or canceling future showings. In support of the application, the Estate's counsel
certified Rita had not made any payments.
In a letter opposing the application, Rita's counsel advised the court that
earlier that day he had sent by hand delivery a letter and a check to the Estate's
attorney. In the March 18, 2024 letter, Rita's counsel enclosed a $300,000 check
and asked counsel to confirm Sarah would cease efforts to sell the marital home.
A-3098-23 9 The next day, Rita applied for an order to show cause, seeking, among
other things, an order vacating the $30,000 sanction in the December 19, 2023
order in light of her March 18, 2024 payment. Rita asserted any delay in the
transfer of funds was caused by the Estate. The court denied the applications
for an order to show cause and converted them to motions.
After hearing argument, the court entered a May 3, 2024 order with an
accompanying statement of reasons, deeming some of the requested relief moot
in light of the March 18 payment. The court awarded the Estate $3,237.50 in
counsel fees. The court denied Rita's request to vacate the $30,000 sanction
provision in the December 19, 2023 order. Reviewing Rita's history of
noncompliance, the court held the $30,000 sanction was "[a] new sanction . . .
entered by the court . . . to compel payment from [Rita] by March 1, 2024," and
Rita "failed to comply." The court rejected Rita's reliance on the June 5, 2023
consent order, finding "the court ha[d] already entered a judgment and ha[d]
already determined that [Rita] ha[d] violated the [c]onsent [o]rder." The court
held Rita's "obligation under the [December 19, 2023 o]rder was to make the
$300,000 payment to [the Estate] irrespective of the surrender costs, fees, and
tax liabilities."
A-3098-23 10 In her notice of appeal, Rita limited her appeal to the provision in the
December 19, 2023 order imposing on her a $30,000 sanction if she failed to
pay the $300,000 judgment by March 1, 2024, and the court's denial in the May
3, 2024 order of her request to vacate that provision. On appeal, she argues the
court erred by rewriting the terms of the June 5, 2023 consent order and QDRO,
giving the Estate a better deal than the one for which it bargained. She also
contends the $30,000 sanction was punitive, not coercive, and the court erred in
not vacating it after she made the $300,000 payment seventeen days after the
March 1, 2024 deadline. Unpersuaded by those arguments, we affirm.
II.
Our review of the Family Part's findings is limited. Gormley v. Gormley,
462 N.J. Super. 433, 442 (App. Div. 2019). The Family Part "possesses broad
equitable powers to accomplish substantial justice." Finger v. Zenn, 335 N.J.
Super. 438, 446 (App. Div. 2000). We "afford substantial deference to the
Family Part's findings of fact because of that court's special expertise in family
matters." W.M. v. D.G., 467 N.J. Super. 216, 229 (App. Div. 2021) (citing
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998)). "Under that deferential standard
of review, we are bound to uphold a finding that is supported by sufficient
credible evidence in the record." Moynihan v. Lynch, 250 N.J. 60, 90 (2022).
A-3098-23 11 "However, we confer no deference to a trial court's interpretation of the law,
which we review de novo to determine whether the judge correctly adhered to
applicable legal standards." Avelino-Catabran v. Catabran, 445 N.J. Super. 574,
587 (App. Div. 2016). "Reversal is reserved for only those circumstances in
which we determine the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge
went 'so wide of the mark that a mistake must have been made.'" Ibid. (quoting
N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007)).
The court entered the December 19, 2023 order under appeal to resolve
the Estate's motion to enforce litigant's rights and Rita's cross-motion. Pursuant
to Rule 1:10-3, "a litigant in any action may seek relief by application in the
action." A proceeding to enforce litigant's rights "is essentially a civil
proceeding to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court's order for
the benefit of the private litigant." Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127, 140 (2006)
(quoting Essex Cnty. Welfare Bd. v. Perkins, 133 N.J. Super. 189, 195 (App.
Div. 1975)). "Rule 1:10-3 provides a means for securing relief and allow[s] for
judicial discretion in fashioning relief to litigants when a party does not comply
with a judgment or order." Satz v. Satz, 476 N.J. Super. 536, 554 (App. Div.
2023) (alteration in original) (quoting N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. State, 451
N.J. Super. 282, 296 (App. Div. 2017)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A-3098-23 12 "Once the court determines the non-compliant party was able to comply
with the order and unable to show the failure was excusable, it may impose
appropriate sanctions." Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184, 198 (App.
Div. 2012). A court may impose relief "not for the purpose of punishment, but
as a coercive measure to facilitate the enforcement of the court order." Satz,
476 N.J. Super. at 554-55 (quoting Ridley v. Dennison, 298 N.J. Super. 373, 381
(App. Div. 1997)). Judicial sanctions must be "rationally related to the
desideratum of imposing a sting on the offending party within its reasonable
economic means." Holtham v. Lucas, 460 N.J. Super. 308, 322 (App. Div. 2019)
(quoting Innes v. Carrascosa, 391 N.J. Super. 453, 498 (App. Div. 2007))
(internal quotation marks omitted). "The sting of a sanction, unlike the specter
of contract damages, is designed to deter and coerce." Ibid.
"We review a trial court's order enforcing litigant's rights pursuant to Rule
1:10-3 under an abuse[-]of[-]discretion standard." Wear v. Selective Ins. Co.,
455 N.J. Super. 440, 458 (App. Div. 2018). We also review a trial court's order
on a reconsideration motion under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Branch v.
Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021). A trial court abuses its
discretion "when a decision was 'made without a rational explanation,
inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible
A-3098-23 13 basis.'" Wear, 455 N.J. Super. at 459 (quoting Flagg v. Essex Cnty. Prosecutor,
171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002)).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in the court's decision to impose
sanctions in the December 19, 2023 order or in its May 3, 2024 denial of Rita's
request to vacate those sanctions. Rita purports to rely on the terms of the
consent order, but as the court found, she failed to comply with those terms.
After repeated failures to comply with orders concerning the sale of the marital
home and the provision of information to the Estate's counsel, Rita failed to
"transfer the sum of $300,000.00 to [the Estate] from her retirement assets
through [a QDRO]" by the agreed-on deadline established in the consent order.
(Emphasis omitted). In imposing the sanctions, the court, contrary to Rita's
argument, was not rewriting the June 5, 2023 consent order and was not
attempting to award damages for Rita's breach of that order. Pursuant to its
authority, the court imposed the sanctions as a coercive measure to gain her
compliance.
Rita challenges the factual findings underlying the court's decision to
impose and maintain sanctions. She contends in her appellate briefs, as she
contended in the trial court, that she complied with prior orders, including the
consent order, and any delay in compliance was the fault of others. In factual
A-3098-23 14 findings that were supported by the evidence in the record, the court expressly
rejected Rita's assertions. We have no basis to overturn the court's factual
findings.
Rita contends the court's sanction was punitive and not coercive, arguing
the court should have vacated the sanctions because she was late in making the
payment by only approximately ten business days. We disagree. In making that
argument, Rita fails to recognize her history of non-compliance with court
orders. Given that history, the sanctions were neither unreasonable nor
excessive and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
A-3098-23 15