SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3267- 21 BUKURIE LLUGANI, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. ARBEN TOSKA, Defendant-Respondent.

_______________________ _

Submitted April 24, 2024

– Decided Ju ly 30 , 202 4 Before Judges Vernoia and Gummer. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, Docket No. FD- 04

- 0814

- 19. Hark & Hark, attorneys for appellant (Michael J. Co llis, on the brief). Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM Plaintiff Bukurie Llugani appeals from a July 12, 2 022 order granting the motion of defendant Arben Toska to reduce his child -support obligation

. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.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 parti es in the case and its use in other cases is limite d. R. 1:36- 3.2 A- 3267

- 21

Plaintiff challenges only the denials of her motion s for the appointment of a forensic accountant. Perceiving no abuse of discre tion, we affirm. The parties have a child who was born in 2016. Defendant's weekly childsupport obligation initially was set at $319. 1 In September 2020, defendant moved for a reduction in his child-support obligation based on his expenses associated with two other children who were in his custody full-time and a purported loss of income due to unemployment and th e dissolution of his "clothing sales" business allegedly caused by the p andemic. In the certification he submitted in support of the motion, defendant as serted the business had "closed, " having had "zero revenue since March [2020], " and that he had not been paid by the business since the May 29, 2020 pa y period.
On December 3, 2020, the parties placed on the record a "consent agreement, " in which they agreed to temporarily reduce defendant's weekly child-support obligation to $108 and "to conduct di scovery, which includes interrogatories, request for admissions, document r equests, and depositions." The court set deadlines for the service of discover y requests and responses,

1 We take that number from a decision the Family Part judge placed on the record on May 18, 2022. In a certification submitt ed in support of his modification motion, defendant represented he had b een paying $296 weekly in child support pursuant to a May 16, 2019 order. We were not provided with a copy of that order.3 A- 3267

- 21

scheduled a follow-up conference, and asked counsel to submit a form of order. Plaintiff did not include a copy of that order in t he appellate record. On April 29, 2021 , defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's opposition to his motion due to her alleged failure to comply wit h discovery orders and to compel her to produce a case information statement and certain documents. Plaintiff cross-moved for the appointment of "a for ensic accountant for a business valuation/cash flow analysis of [d]efendan t's business, RUCS4, LLC," with defendant paying the accountant's fees or, alt ernatively, each party paying fifty percent of those fees. In support of her cross-motion, plaintiff submitted her certification in which she asserted a review ofdefendant's business creditcard statements and checking-account statements dem onstrated defendant had not been truthful to the court about his business b eing dissolved. She highlighted the amount of money deposited and withdrawn from hi s business checking-account between January 2020 and March 202 1 and the charges on his business credit-card statements that seemed to indi cate the business was still operating. Defendant submitted a certification in reply; we we re not provided with a copy of that certification. During oral argument on June 24, 2021, defense coun sel represented that "not one iota of proof shows any money from the bus iness going to [defendant]"4 A- 3267

- 21

and "[h]is cousin is running the business." The ju dge held that he was "not ordering a forensic accountant right now." The jud ge explained:

My recollection from the prior motion . . . was tha t there was an ownership issue involving the corporation .

. . . And I'm not about to order a forensic accountant unless there is some proof of ownership. If your client h asn' t been traveling for the business, you know, a deposi tion is going to bring this all out. A deposition is li kely to incur a couple of hours of prep time and a couple o f hours . . . which is going to be significantly less than a forensic accountant. If there is the information t hat comes out of the deposition that may justify a fore nsic account, then I may allow it. And I'm not sure what the allocation will be. Plaintiff's counsel asked if plaintiff could "refil e" her motion for the appointment of a forensic accountant after the part ies were deposed. The judge appeared to grant that request on the record. In a n order issued that day, the judge ordered plaintiff to provide certain document s by July 26, 2021, and the parties to complete depositions by August 6, 2021. In September 2021, plaintiff apparently again move d for the appointment of a forensic accountant. Plaintiff did not include copies of that motion in the appellate record. At oral argument on February 22, 2022 , before a different Family Part judge , plaintiff's counsel indicated defendant testified d uring his deposition that his "old business closed" and that he wa s no longer a part of that business. She highlighted the following information in support of plaintiff's5 A- 3267

- 21

motion: the business's operating agreement had not been amended to show he was no longer an owner; the business credit card un der his name was still being used; defendant had traveled with his family to Eur ope while receiving unemployment benefits; money was flowing in and out of the business; and defendant no longer received a salary from the comp any because he was collecting unemployment benefits and the salary wa s being paid instead to his cousin, who had not previously receiv ed a salary. Defense counsel asserted defendant had produced personal bank statements and credit-card statements and that in those personal records and in the business record s "not one item of proof, nothing, has been shown . . . that [defendant] is receiving some type of ex tra income." After hearing argument, the judge denied the motion , finding: I do not see that there is a need for a forensic ac counting in this matter based on all of the information that has been submitted already. And that there has been no

– no proof that there is any malfeasance on behalf of the business. There' s, certainly, no accounts that have been, you know, hidden or there's no money that [defendant] is, at least on paper, hiding. So, the m otion to have a forensic accounting is denied. After rendering that decision, the judge conducted a plenary hearing regarding defendant's modification motion. Both parties testified. On May 18, 2022, the judge placed a decision on the record. T he judge referenced plaintiff's6 A- 3267

- 21

"second application" for the appointment of a foren sic accountant "made . . . in September of 2021" and his denial of that motion on February 22, 2022. Findin g defendant credible and plaintiff not credible, the judge imputed salary to defendant in the amount of $52,000, "as consented t o and agreed upon by the defendant and his attorney, " and held defendant's weekly child-support obligation would remain at $108. The judge ordered defendant "to provide his tax return to the plaintiff on an annual basis to e nsure that there is no drastic change in his income." The judge memorialized his d ecision in a two-part order dated July 12, 2022. The judge included in the order his findings that p laintiff had not presented credible evidence that defendant was hiding money or that money was "being diverted from the business to defe ndant." Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 28, 2022 , indicating she was appealing from an order dated May 18, 2022. In an amended notice of appeal, plaintiff stated she was appealing from the July 12 , 2022 order, indicating the judge did not issue a written order on May 18, 2022 . Plaintiff did not list the June 24, 2021 order as being the subject of her app eal in either notice. In her merits brief, plaintiff presented one argume nt: the judges abused their discretion in denying her motions for the app ointment of a forensic accountant. She did not brief any other issue. Se e N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot. v.7 A- 3267

- 21

Alloway Twp., 438 N.J. Super. 501, 505 n.2 (App. Di v. 2015) (finding "[a]n issue that is not briefed is deemed waived upon app eal"). Our review of a Family Part judge's findings is lim ited. 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)). We review a Family Part judge's imputation of income and chil d-support determination for an abuse of discretion. Elrom v. Elrom, 439 N.J. S uper. 424, 433 (App. Div. 2015). "Reversal is warranted only if the f indings were 'so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of jus tice.'" Amzler v. Amzler, 463 N.J. Super. 187, 197 (App. Div. 2020) (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). We revi ew questions of law de novo. Amzler , 463 N.J. Super. at 197

. Rule 5:3 -3(c) authorizes a judge to appoint an expert "to a ppraise the value of any property or to report and recommend as to an y other issue" "[w]henever the [judge] concludes that disposition of an econom ic issue will be assisted by expert opinion." See also Elrom, 439 N.J. at 438 (noting a "court ma y appoint an expert to resolve an economic issue" pursuant to Rule 5:3 -3(c)). Recogniz ing8 A- 3267

- 21

th at a "court could consider the appointment of an in dependent expert to assist it ," our Supreme Court has encouraged courts to use " other discovery methods . . . to narrow the issues . . . ." Bowen v. Bowen , 96 N.J. 36, 52 (1984). Plaintiff argues the judge abused his discretion i n denying her initial motion for the appointment of a forensic accountant on June 24, 2021. Plaintiff, however, did not list the June 24, 2021 order in an y of her notices of appeal or case information statements. See R. 2:5 -1(f)(2)(ii) (requiring an appellant to "designate the judgment, decision, action, or rule, or part thereof appealed from " in the notice of appeal) ; Campagna ex rel. Greco v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 337 N.J

. Super. 530, 550 (App. Div. 2001) (refusing to consid er order not listed in notice of appeal) ; see also Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Ru les, cmt. 5.1 on
R. 2:5 -1 (2022) ("failure to identify an issue in the not ice of appeal may be saved by identification in the case information statement filed with the notice of appeal" ); Synnex Corp. v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 394 N.J. Su per. 577, 588 (App. Div. 2007) (reviewing an order that was identified in the case information statement but not the notice of appeal). Thus, plaintiff's attempted appeal of the denial of her initial motion is procedurally improp er. But even consider ing it substantively, we find no merit in it. On June 24, 2021, the judge denied plaintiff's motion without prejudice , recalling from a9 A- 3267

- 21

prior motion an issue regarding the ownership of th e company at issue, and ordered defendant to appear for deposition to addre ss that issue, which, in the judge's view, was an appropriate initial cost-savin g step before appointing and incurring the fees of a forensic accountant. We pe rceive no abuse of discretion in that determination. Plaintiff's appeal of the denial of her second mot ion for the appointment of a forensic expert also is procedurally flawed. Pursuant to Rule 2:6 -1 (a) (1) , an appellant must include in the appendix "parts of the record . . . essential to the proper consideration of the issues, including s uch parts as the appellant should reasonably assume will be relied upon by the respondent in meeting the issues raised." We are not "obli[gated] to attempt review of an iss ue when the relevant portions of the record are not included." Cmty. Hosp. Grp., Inc. v. Blume Goldfaden Berkowitz Donnelly Fried & Forte, P .C., 381 N.J. Super. 119, 127 (App. Div. 2005); see also State v. Cordero, 438 N.J. Super. 472, 489 (App. Div. 2014). Plaintiff did not include in her appendix copies of any documents she submitted in support of her September 2021 motion f or the appointment of a forensic accountant. Thus, we don't know what documentary evidence, if a ny, and what deposition testimony she cited in support of her motion. On that10 A- 3267

- 21

record, and without evidence showing "malfeasance" or "hidden" money, we have no basis to conclude the judge's determination that he did not need a forensic accountant to decide defendant's modificat ion motion was an abuse of discretion. Affirmed.