NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-5481-13T4 A-3416-14T4 A-4070-14T4
ISABELLA BLUMBERG,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
GIRSH BLUMBERG,
Defendant-Appellant. __________________________________
Argued March 16, 2017 – Decided May 23, 2017
Before Judges Alvarez, Accurso and Manahan.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket No. FM-20-1243-10.
Girsh Blumberg, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Isabella Blumberg, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
PER CURIAM
In these three appeals, calendared back-to-back and
consolidated for purpose of this opinion, defendant Girsh Blumberg challenges a series of post-judgment orders entered by the Family
Part. We affirm.
In A-3416-14, defendant appeals from three post-judgment
orders. The first order, filed in October 2014, denied his order
to show cause (OTSC) and converted it to a motion. The second
order, filed in January 2015, denied his motion to emancipate the
parties' daughter, enforce litigant's rights, void the sale of the
former marital home, stay all garnishment orders and directed
defendant to remove his personal belongings from plaintiff's
storage unit. An order entered in February 2015, denied defendant
reconsideration of the January 2015 order and granted plaintiff's
cross-motion to enforce litigant's rights and appointed plaintiff
attorney-in-fact for defendant to effectuate equitable
distribution under the Judgment of Divorce (JOD).
In A-4070-14, defendant appeals from two orders entered on
March 24, 2015, which approved two Qualified Domestic Relations
Orders (QDROs) submitted by plaintiff.
In A-5481-13, defendant appeals from certain provisions of
four post-judgment orders. The first order, entered on May 14,
2014, reinstated and readjusted defendant's pendente lite arrears
in the amount of $25,706, vacated a provision in an earlier order
that held plaintiff in violation of litigant's rights for failing
to pay the children's health insurance premiums, and denied
2 A-5481-13T4 defendant's motion in its entirety. The second order, entered on
May 30, 2014, directed that all of defendant's retirement accounts
remain frozen. The third order, entered on June 16, 2014, denied
without prejudice defendant's request to vacate the May 30, 2014
restraints. The fourth order entered on July 18, 2014, denied
defendant's motion, for among other things: (1) reconsideration
of the May 14, 2014 order; (2) custody modification; and (3)
enforcement of litigant's rights.
This is defendant's third, fourth and fifth appeals. On
defendant's first two appeals, we affirmed the parties' JOD, but
remanded for a recalculation of child support for the parties'
daughter. Blumberg v. Blumberg, Nos. A-5405-12 and A-1040-13 (App.
Div. Aug. 24, 2015), certifs. denied, 224 N.J. 281 (2016) (slip
op. at 2) (Blumberg I). We also affirmed two post-judgment orders
entered in August 2013 that appointed plaintiff as defendant's
attorney-in-fact to effectuate property distribution, found
defendant in violation of litigant's rights, and denied
defendant's request for a stay pending appeal. Id. at 21, 37.
In his appeals, defendant challenges, among other arguments,
the adequacy of the findings in contending that the judge failed
to consider the evidence he submitted. The crux of defendant's
arguments focuses on the sale of the former marital home, which
he alleges was unauthorized and improperly upheld by the judge.
3 A-5481-13T4 In addition, he contends the judge erred in denying his application
for emancipation of the parties' daughter and reconsideration.
Defendant further contends that the orders were entered "on an
impermissible basis and lack any jurisdiction."1
We summarize the following facts and procedural history
relevant to our determination. At the time of the divorce in 2013,
the parties' children were ages twenty and seventeen. The JOD
ordered, in relevant part, equitable distribution of marital
assets including bank and retirement accounts, defendant to pay
child support and alimony, and designated plaintiff power of
attorney to effectuate the distribution and transfer of marital
assets, and that each party was responsible for paying for the
preparation of QDROs. In addition, defendant was ordered to
provide "an updated accounting of all bills paid for the marital
home . . . and upon receipt," there would be a recalculation of
his pendente lite arrears. Further, the parties were granted joint
legal custody of the parties' daughter with plaintiff granted sole
physical custody.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging the JOD and
several pre-judgment orders. After additional motion practice,
1 In total, defendant raises thirty-one arguments over the three appeals.
4 A-5481-13T4 two post-judgment orders were entered in August 2013 from which
defendant filed a second notice of appeal. Blumberg I.
In the interim, further issues emerged between the parties
regarding their obligations under the JOD. This prompted another
series of post-judgment applications and appeals by defendant. We
recite those applications for context and clarity.
In 2014, defendant learned that plaintiff contracted to sell
the former marital home. In response, defendant filed an OTSC to
prevent the sale of the home. In addition, defendant requested
to void the real estate transaction, direct that his mortgagee
hold the release of the note and lien, enforce litigant's rights
and emancipate the parties' daughter. Plaintiff was not served
in accordance with court rules. A Family Part judge determined
that the OTSC was non-emergent and converted it to a motion.
Defendant thereafter filed two emergent applications with
this court. This court denied defendant emergent relief on both
motions reasoning that they were non-emergent. Defendant sought
emergent relief from the Supreme Court, which was denied.
The OTSC, now converted to a motion, was heard on January 9,
2015. Subsequent to oral argument, defendant's motion as to all
relief sought was denied. The judge held that plaintiff "was
clearly within her rights, pursuant to the judgment of divorce,
to sell the former marital residence, as she had complete ownership
5 A-5481-13T4 of it based on the final judgment of divorce." Defendant was
ordered to remove his personal belongings from plaintiff's storage
unit, which she rented to store his items following the sale of
the home.
The judge also denied without prejudice defendant's request
that his support obligation terminate based upon his daughter's
emancipation. Plaintiff was ordered to furnish defendant with
documents attesting to the daughter's full-time college
enrollment. In addressing defendant's motion, the judge informed
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-5481-13T4 A-3416-14T4 A-4070-14T4
ISABELLA BLUMBERG,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
GIRSH BLUMBERG,
Defendant-Appellant. __________________________________
Argued March 16, 2017 – Decided May 23, 2017
Before Judges Alvarez, Accurso and Manahan.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket No. FM-20-1243-10.
Girsh Blumberg, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Isabella Blumberg, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
PER CURIAM
In these three appeals, calendared back-to-back and
consolidated for purpose of this opinion, defendant Girsh Blumberg challenges a series of post-judgment orders entered by the Family
Part. We affirm.
In A-3416-14, defendant appeals from three post-judgment
orders. The first order, filed in October 2014, denied his order
to show cause (OTSC) and converted it to a motion. The second
order, filed in January 2015, denied his motion to emancipate the
parties' daughter, enforce litigant's rights, void the sale of the
former marital home, stay all garnishment orders and directed
defendant to remove his personal belongings from plaintiff's
storage unit. An order entered in February 2015, denied defendant
reconsideration of the January 2015 order and granted plaintiff's
cross-motion to enforce litigant's rights and appointed plaintiff
attorney-in-fact for defendant to effectuate equitable
distribution under the Judgment of Divorce (JOD).
In A-4070-14, defendant appeals from two orders entered on
March 24, 2015, which approved two Qualified Domestic Relations
Orders (QDROs) submitted by plaintiff.
In A-5481-13, defendant appeals from certain provisions of
four post-judgment orders. The first order, entered on May 14,
2014, reinstated and readjusted defendant's pendente lite arrears
in the amount of $25,706, vacated a provision in an earlier order
that held plaintiff in violation of litigant's rights for failing
to pay the children's health insurance premiums, and denied
2 A-5481-13T4 defendant's motion in its entirety. The second order, entered on
May 30, 2014, directed that all of defendant's retirement accounts
remain frozen. The third order, entered on June 16, 2014, denied
without prejudice defendant's request to vacate the May 30, 2014
restraints. The fourth order entered on July 18, 2014, denied
defendant's motion, for among other things: (1) reconsideration
of the May 14, 2014 order; (2) custody modification; and (3)
enforcement of litigant's rights.
This is defendant's third, fourth and fifth appeals. On
defendant's first two appeals, we affirmed the parties' JOD, but
remanded for a recalculation of child support for the parties'
daughter. Blumberg v. Blumberg, Nos. A-5405-12 and A-1040-13 (App.
Div. Aug. 24, 2015), certifs. denied, 224 N.J. 281 (2016) (slip
op. at 2) (Blumberg I). We also affirmed two post-judgment orders
entered in August 2013 that appointed plaintiff as defendant's
attorney-in-fact to effectuate property distribution, found
defendant in violation of litigant's rights, and denied
defendant's request for a stay pending appeal. Id. at 21, 37.
In his appeals, defendant challenges, among other arguments,
the adequacy of the findings in contending that the judge failed
to consider the evidence he submitted. The crux of defendant's
arguments focuses on the sale of the former marital home, which
he alleges was unauthorized and improperly upheld by the judge.
3 A-5481-13T4 In addition, he contends the judge erred in denying his application
for emancipation of the parties' daughter and reconsideration.
Defendant further contends that the orders were entered "on an
impermissible basis and lack any jurisdiction."1
We summarize the following facts and procedural history
relevant to our determination. At the time of the divorce in 2013,
the parties' children were ages twenty and seventeen. The JOD
ordered, in relevant part, equitable distribution of marital
assets including bank and retirement accounts, defendant to pay
child support and alimony, and designated plaintiff power of
attorney to effectuate the distribution and transfer of marital
assets, and that each party was responsible for paying for the
preparation of QDROs. In addition, defendant was ordered to
provide "an updated accounting of all bills paid for the marital
home . . . and upon receipt," there would be a recalculation of
his pendente lite arrears. Further, the parties were granted joint
legal custody of the parties' daughter with plaintiff granted sole
physical custody.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging the JOD and
several pre-judgment orders. After additional motion practice,
1 In total, defendant raises thirty-one arguments over the three appeals.
4 A-5481-13T4 two post-judgment orders were entered in August 2013 from which
defendant filed a second notice of appeal. Blumberg I.
In the interim, further issues emerged between the parties
regarding their obligations under the JOD. This prompted another
series of post-judgment applications and appeals by defendant. We
recite those applications for context and clarity.
In 2014, defendant learned that plaintiff contracted to sell
the former marital home. In response, defendant filed an OTSC to
prevent the sale of the home. In addition, defendant requested
to void the real estate transaction, direct that his mortgagee
hold the release of the note and lien, enforce litigant's rights
and emancipate the parties' daughter. Plaintiff was not served
in accordance with court rules. A Family Part judge determined
that the OTSC was non-emergent and converted it to a motion.
Defendant thereafter filed two emergent applications with
this court. This court denied defendant emergent relief on both
motions reasoning that they were non-emergent. Defendant sought
emergent relief from the Supreme Court, which was denied.
The OTSC, now converted to a motion, was heard on January 9,
2015. Subsequent to oral argument, defendant's motion as to all
relief sought was denied. The judge held that plaintiff "was
clearly within her rights, pursuant to the judgment of divorce,
to sell the former marital residence, as she had complete ownership
5 A-5481-13T4 of it based on the final judgment of divorce." Defendant was
ordered to remove his personal belongings from plaintiff's storage
unit, which she rented to store his items following the sale of
the home.
The judge also denied without prejudice defendant's request
that his support obligation terminate based upon his daughter's
emancipation. Plaintiff was ordered to furnish defendant with
documents attesting to the daughter's full-time college
enrollment. In addressing defendant's motion, the judge informed
defendant that, while a request to modify child support due to the
daughter's attendance at college away from home was appropriate,
it was not properly before the court since a child support
modification was not requested in his motion. The judge also
informed defendant he had the right to subpoena the third-party
institutions and could do so if he wished. Addressing defendant's
retirement accounts, the judge concluded that defendant's history
of moving assets necessitated the freezing of the accounts and
thus declined to unfreeze them. Lastly, the judge denied a stay
of the garnishment orders, finding that defendant was required to
pay his support arrears. An accompanying order memorializing the
decision was entered the same day.
Defendant moved for reconsideration and other relief on
January 26, 2015. Defendant sought modification of his support
6 A-5481-13T4 obligations, enforcement of litigant's rights, and renewed his
application for emancipation. Defendant alleged that plaintiff
failed to provide documentation of their daughter's college
enrollment as ordered and failed to reimburse him for his portion
of the children's health insurance premiums. Defendant also sought
the disqualification of the judge on grounds of bias and lack of
impartiality. Plaintiff opposed the motion and filed a cross-
motion, seeking to enforce certain provisions of the JOD and hold
defendant in violation of litigant's rights for failing to remove
his belongings from her storage unit. With respect to the JOD,
plaintiff sought to effectuate the distribution of marital assets
under her power of attorney designation and QDRO approval.
The motion and cross-motion were decided on the papers. The
judge denied defendant's reconsideration motion and granted in
part plaintiff's cross-motion. The judge appointed plaintiff
attorney-in-fact for defendant "to effectuate the equitable
distribution granted in the [JOD]" and ordered her to "resubmit
to the court the [QDRO] prepared by [d]efendant's TIAA-CREF2
annuities and Alcatel Lucent 401K plan." In the statement of
reasons that accompanied the order, the judge held that defendant
2 TIAA-CREF is the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association- College Retirement Equities Fund and is a financial service organization that manages the retirement funds for people who work in the academic, research, medical and cultural fields.
7 A-5481-13T4 failed to submit "any information in support of his application
for reconsideration that would warrant a reconsideration," and
thus, failed to meet his burden in accordance with Rule 4:49-2.
The judge granted plaintiff's cross-motion to enforce certain
provisions of the JOD and found defendant in violation of
litigant's right for failing to remove his personal property from
her storage unit. The judge further denied with prejudice,
plaintiff's motion for $739.48 for the removal of defendant's
property. Defendant filed an appeal (A-3416-14).
After the appeal was filed, plaintiff submitted two QDROs for
judicial approval. On March 24, 2015, both QDRO orders were
entered. Defendant filed an appeal (A-4070-14).
In early 2014, plaintiff moved to vacate certain provisions
of a previously issued order. That order had, in relevant part,
credited $25,706.18 to defendant's pendente lite arrears after he
presented an accounting of payments made toward the marital home
as provided in the JOD, and had held plaintiff in violation of
litigant's right for failing to pay defendant her portion of the
children's health insurance premiums. Defendant opposed the
motion and filed a cross-motion to vacate the JOD, his support
obligations and arrears.
The judge found defendant "incredible in this particular
matter." Relying on plaintiff's proofs, the judge found defendant
8 A-5481-13T4 was unable to account for the nearly $32,000 once held in a bank
account that was subject to equitable distribution. The judge
noted that defendant closed that account without one-half
distribution to plaintiff. Instead, defendant opened a new account
and deposited half of the money. Plaintiff had no knowledge of
or access to the new account. Given what transpired, the judge
reinstated defendant's arrears and ordered that his probation
account be adjusted accordingly.
In addition, the judge found plaintiff sent her portion of
the children's health insurance premiums to defendant by certified
mail and defendant had failed to claim his mail. The judge denied
defendant's cross-motion in its entirety upon finding that most
of defendant's relief was either on appeal or had been previously
addressed. An order memorializing the findings and determinations
was entered on May 9, 2014.
Later that month, plaintiff filed an OTSC to prohibit
defendant from "withdrawing or transferring funds" from his
Alcatel Lucent 401K plan and his TIAA-CREF retirement account and
to direct the banks to freeze the accounts until a "QDRO meets
qualification status." In an order entered on May 30, 2014, the
judge converted plaintiff's application to a motion returnable
June 27, 2014, and ordered that all of defendant's retirement
accounts "remain frozen."
9 A-5481-13T4 Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to: (1) reconsider and
vacate certain provisions of the May 14, 2014 order; (2) find
plaintiff in violation of certain provisions of the JOD; (3) modify
the custody arrangement; (4) void the Declaration of Deed to the
former marital property; (5) grant him unrestricted access to the
former marital home and to his personal effects located therein;
(6) compel plaintiff to reimburse him for damages to his personal
property and to the former marital home; (7) compel plaintiff to
reimburse him $26,044.93 for payments toward the marital home "in
the nature of house occupancy and rent since October 2012"; (8)
credit $26,044.93 to his probation account and vacate all arrears;
(9) amend or vacate his child support and alimony obligations;
(10) compel plaintiff to reimburse him $13,205 for overpayment of
child support; (11) amend or vacate the income withholding order,
and require plaintiff to reimburse him $61,939 for the 12 months
of improperly withheld income; (12) vacate the FJOD; (13) stay
custody, garnishment and withholding orders.
Plaintiff opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion to: (1)
reinstate defendant's $200 per week payment obligation under the
JOD for his failure to pay in full the pendente lite relief; (2)
approve the QDRO; and (3) reduce her contribution to the children's
health insurance premiums.
10 A-5481-13T4 On June 12, 2014, defendant moved to vacate the May 30, 2014
restraints. Plaintiff did not respond. The judge determined that
defendant's application should be addressed at the scheduled June
27 return date, and accordingly denied without prejudice
defendant's request.
The matters were heard on July 18, 2014. Defendant's motion
for reconsideration was denied after a finding that defendant
reiterated the same arguments that were previously raised and
addressed. The judge also determined that there was no substantial
change in circumstances to warrant a transfer of custody. The
judge further found that defendant failed to prove his allegation
of parental alienation of the parties' daughter, and concluded
that no judicial decree could compel the daughter, an incoming
college freshman, to see her father.
Defendant was denied unrestricted access and ownership to the
former marital home, but was offered the opportunity to retrieve
his items from the home. The judge denied defendant's application
for reimbursement and credit of payments made toward the marital
home and a stay of custody, garnishment and withholding orders,
concluding that these items had already been addressed and
previously denied. The judge declined to address defendant's
motion to amend or vacate child support and alimony, modify income
withholding, and provide reimbursement of payments made concluding
11 A-5481-13T4 that the court was without jurisdiction to decide the application
while defendant's appeal was pending.
Concerning plaintiff's cross-motion, the judge reinstated
defendant's $200 per week payment for his failure to pay in full
his pendente lite support as provided in the JOD. The judge also
granted plaintiff's application to reduce her contribution to the
children's health insurance premiums, finding that each parties'
contribution had been incorrectly calculated. Upon recalculation,
plaintiff's contribution was adjusted to $119.03. Defendant's
retirement accounts were frozen until a QDRO met qualification
status. Defendant was also prohibited from withdrawing or
transferring funds from certain retirement accounts. A confirming
order was entered on July 18, 2014. Defendant filed an appeal (A-
5481-13).
We accord special deference to the family court because of
its "special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters." Id.
at 413. Absent compelling circumstances, we are not free to
substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, which has
become familiar with the case. Schwartz v. Schwartz, 68 N.J.
Super. 223, 232 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 36 N.J. 143 (1961).
However, the "trial court's interpretation of the law and the
legal consequences that flow from established facts are not
entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v.
12 A-5481-13T4 Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). "Accordingly,
when a reviewing court concludes there is satisfactory evidentiary
support for the trial court's findings, 'its task is complete and
it should not disturb the result, even though it has the feeling
it might have reached a different conclusion were it the trial
tribunal.'" Llewelyn v. Shewchuk, 440 N.J. Super. 207, 213-14
(App. Div. 2015) (quoting Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480, 496 (1981)).
Reconsideration should only be used "for those cases which
fall into that narrow corridor in which either (1) the Court has
expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or
irrational basis, or (2) it is obvious that the Court either did
not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of
probative, competent evidence." Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super.
374, 384 (App. Div. 1996) (quoting D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J.
Super. 392, 401-02 (Ch. Div. 1990)). Additionally, the decision
to deny a motion for reconsideration falls within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, to be exercised in the interest of
justice. Ibid.
Having considered the voluminous record before us and in
application of our standard of review, we conclude that defendant's
13 A-5481-13T4 arguments lack merit such as to require discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).3
Affirmed.
3 Our decision relates solely to the substantive determinations made by the Family Part as set forth in the orders addressed herein. Our decision does not relate to those determinations reserved by the Family Part based upon a lack of jurisdiction.
14 A-5481-13T4