[brief] (A33).  [...]’s claims about his Lexus were made in good faith based on the significant proofs including without limitation: - The “doctored” Lexus title “from husband to wife” at a time the Court found the parties were divorced.  (A48).  - [...] filed her Delaware name change petition saying that she was in fact divorced within 24 hours of altering the Lexus title.  (Pa58, Pl.’s Trial Ex. P-22).  - [...]’s own exhibit shows the Lexus was purchased on October 21, 2016 solely in [...]’s name two years and seven months after the parties’ valid divorce.  (A45).  - Paragraph 6 of the July 17, 2018 verified UIM Complaint) in evidence contains [...] and her attorney’s admission that [...] was the owner of the Lexus.  (Pa94, Pl’s Trial Ex. P-37).  - [...]’s testimony that he filed Police Reports claiming that the Lexus was stolen by [...].  - [...] previously testified in the firearms hearing (Pl.’s Trial Ex. P-29) that [...] bought the Lexus for [...]’s birthday, but the Lexus sales invoice (A45) shows that the Lexus was purchased on October 31, when [...]’s birthday is June 28.  Obviously, [...] was lying.  \textsuperscript{13}  She voluntarily dismissed the domestic violence complaint before [...] (See CPa1, Pl.’s Trial Ex. P-44), and she ultimately conceded to [...] at the Firearms hearing that she felt safe dismissing it and told the truth to [...].  (See Pa68, Pl.’s Trial. Ex. P-29, Firearms H’rg Tr. at 61:24-64:21).  • [...]’s R. 4:16 offer of [...]’s August 8, 2019 Deposition in evidence where she admitted she got the Mercedes as part of equitable distribution per paragraph 13 of the parties’ PSA, quoted above.  The trial court missed the point regarding the dispute over the Lexus title.  [...] does not dispute that he signed the title.  But he did not sign the title “from husband to wife” to [...].  [...] completed the title in her own hand with false statements.  She stole the title from [...]’s office while he was away in North Carolina, then she “doctored” the title “from husband to wife” and thus has stolen the Lexus.  As [...] proved at the plenary hearing, the Lexus was purchased solely in [...]’s name [as seen in the defense’s own exhibit (A45)].  If he had purchased it for [...], [...] testified he would have purchased it in her name as was the parties’ historical practice during the marriage.  [See, e.g., 15T76-20-21 “the Mercedes that I bought for her in her name”(emphasis added)].  The trial court abused its discretion in engaging in creative math to credit [...] for the Mercedes (valued at $55,000) and award her with the Lexus (valued at $52,395.61):  The court finds that defendant shall retain the 2017 Lexus and its value on the date of purchase of $52,395.61 shall be credited against the value of the 2010 Mercedes E 350 which the court found she never received.  This leaves a credit to defendant form plaintiff in the amount of $2,604.39.  The trial court ignored [...]’s own admissions during her August 8, 2019 deposition and her March 23, 2016 deposition (testifying she got what she wanted), indicating she received the Mercedes as part of her equitable distribution.  The Lexus should be returned to [...], with compensation for its use for over 5 years.