SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-5832-17T2

 A-5898-17T2

 A-1577-18T2

RUI-RU JI,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HANSON SCHUEN LO,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

RUI-RU JI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HANSON SCHUEN LO,

Defendant-Respondent.

Argued October 17, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 27, 2019
2

A-5832-17T2

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County, 

Docket No. FM-18-0631-10.

Hanson Lo, appellant in A-5832-17 and A-1577-18 and

respondent Hanson Lo in A-5898-17, argued the cause 

pro se.

Rui Ru Ji, respondent in A-5832-17 and A-1577-18 and 

appellant Rui Ru Ji in A-5898-17, argued the cause pro 

se. 

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Rui-Ru Ji and defendant Hanson Lo have two daughters, now 

eighteen and fifteen. The parties' 2013 divorce has generated bitter and 

prolonged post-judgment litigation. Notable among the issues previously

addressed was plaintiff's unilateral move to Massachusetts with the children, 

made in the face of three Family Part orders prohibiting her from doing so. Also 

notable are financial disputes related to the children's college education costs. 

The parties have filed a total of fourteen appeals between them, and have done 

so while simultaneously pursuing their disputes in the trial court.1 For the 

1

 The unpublished opinions can be found at Ji v. Lo, No. A-5860-13 (App. Div. 

Sept. 30, 2015); Ji v. Lo, Nos. A-5206-14, A-0747-15 (App. Div. Dec. 1, 2017); 

Ji v. Lo, Nos. A-2376-16, A-4260-16, A-1800-17 (App. Div. June 27, 2019). 

Additionally, some appeals have been dismissed.
3

A-5832-17T2

reasons that follow, we remand for a plenary hearing to be conducted as to the 

children's college funds and defendant's visitation. We otherwise affirm.

In the parties' May 3, 2013 judgment of divorce (JOD), they were ordered 

to jointly pay $38,000 into a college fund for their daughters. When plaintiff

later purchased defendant's interest in the marital home, the amount he received 

was reduced by $19,000—his half of the college fund contribution. This 

amount, together with plaintiff's $19,000, was to be paid by plaintiff into two

Vanguard 529 accounts established for the children's benefit during the marriage 

in defendant's name only.

Instead of paying the sum into the accounts, although not entirely clear 

from the record, it appears plaintiff deposited $19,000 each into two new

accounts with Vanguard. The accounts were opened years after the order 

requiring her to contribute towards the children's funds. Plaintiff claimed she 

had no choice but to open the new accounts because Vanguard would not permit 

her to be added as a joint account holder with defendant to the existing 529

account. It is undisputed that Vanguard would have accepted the checks for 

deposit. Ultimately, in an unpublished opinion, we ordered that the Family Part 

judge "compel[] plaintiff to make the contribution of $38,000 to the parties' 
4

A-5832-17T2

daughters' 529 accounts as ordered by the JOD." Ji v. Lo, No. A-5860-13, slip 

op. at 5 (App. Div. Sept. 30, 2015). Plaintiff never did so. 

The JOD also ordered plaintiff pay to defendant $76,386.88 as part of the 

divorce settlement, which was later reduced by the Family Part to $69,236.10. 

Plaintiff deposited that amount into a joint account with defendant. Defendant 

later withdrew $68,010 from the joint account. Plaintiff used funds from two 

Bank of America (BOA) accounts totaling $85,000—created for the benefit of 

the children's college educations—to pay defendant the $76,386.88 settlement. 

Plaintiff was "urged" by the court to redeposit those funds into the BOA 

accounts, however she has never done so.

Defendant later requested the court order plaintiff to turn over the account 

information for the BOA accounts. Plaintiff disputed the request on the basis 

that the funds from those accounts came from her post-separation income. 

However, this conflicted with the JOD finding that she had deposited that money 

into the BOA accounts in order to "artificially show [] her financial condition to 

be deteriorating." Because her claim was characterized by the court as 

"disingenuous," she was ordered to turn over the relevant information, subject 

to a $500-per-day sanction for each day that she did not.
5

A-5832-17T2

Thereafter, on August 21, 2017, defendant requested that plaintiff 

reimburse the BOA accounts, and was denied. At that time, defendant claimed 

the accounts were reduced to $19,000 each.2 Defendant persisted in his demand 

that plaintiff reimburse the accounts and add the interest that would have been 

earned on the $85,000 had the money never been withdrawn, and requested 

monetary sanctions. Plaintiff argued the issue had been resolved in the August 

2017 order.

On July 6, 2018, when the judge revisited the issue, defendant's request 

that the $85,000 be returned to the children was denied. Defendant seeks relief 

from that denial, in addition to appealing the Family Part's failure to compel 

plaintiff to deposit the $38,000 into the children's Vanguard college fund, which

she was ordered to pay years prior. 

Originally, defendant had visitation with the children every other 

weekend, in addition to summers and holiday time. Plaintiff's request for 

permission to relocate to Massachusetts was granted, in part because by that

juncture defendant's relationship with his oldest child had deteriorated 

2

 Defendant provided in this record two screenshots of BOA accounts that at 

one point had $19,000 in them but had been reduced to zero. It is impossible to 

tell if these are the actual BOA accounts subject to this litigation. It is unclear 

if they were ever presented to the Family Part.
6

A-5832-17T2

completely. To balance the major reduction in defendant's access, plaintiff was 

ordered on April 6, 2018, to pay defendant for all reasonable visitation expenses. 

Defendant could not, because of his employment, arrive in Massachusetts 

earlier than mid-Saturday, and had to leave for New Jersey by mid-Sunday. He 

therefore filed a motion seeking to reduce his weekend time with the children 

and instead expand his summer and holiday visitation. Inexplicably, defendant 

appeared to have filed a second entirely separate application seeking this relief. 

Defendant's motion for three extra weeks of vacation time and three long 

weekends was denied July 6, 2018. On August 17, 2018, defendant's request 

reducing his weekend visitation time was granted, and no mention made in the 

order of defendant's request that the holiday time be increased. The court then 

also partially granted defendant's request for travel expense reimbursement. 

Defendant was granted four weeks of vacation time with the children, leaving 

plaintiff six weeks over the summer. Defendant was denied reconsideration. He

appeals that order as well.

In No. A-5832-17, defendant raises the following issues:

POINT 1: PARAGRAPH 28 OF THE ORDER OF 

7/[6]/2018 MUST BE REVERSED AND 

REMANDED, PARTICULARLY IN REGARD TO 

MY REQUESTS RELATED TO THE VANGUARD 

529 ACCOUNTS ISSUE, BECAUSE 1) THE FAMILY 

COURT'S FAILURE TO ADDRESS DIRECTLY MY 
7

A-5832-17T2

REQUESTS IN THE MOTIONS OF 3/13/2018 AND 

5/7/2018 WAS A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHT TO 

HAVE LITIGATIONS ADJUDICATED AS WELL AS 

VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S RESPONSIBILITY 

TO ADJUDICATE; 2) THE FAMILY COURT DID 

NOT CONDUCT FINDING OF FACTS AND 

CONCLUSION OF LAW TO SUPPORT THE 

DECISION, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF COURT 

RULES; AND 3) THE FAMILY COURT DID HAVE 

JURISDICTION OVER MY REQUESTS. I ALSO 

ASK THE COURT TO GRANT MY REQUESTS 

RELATED TO THE VANGUARD 529 ACCOUNTS 

ISSUE IMMEDIATELY GIVEN THE URGENCY OF 

THE OLDER CHILD'S PLAN TO ATTEND 

COLLEGE IN THE FALL OF 2019.

POINT 2: PARAGRAPH 28 OF THE ORDER OF 

7/[6]/2018 MUST BE REVERSED AND 

REMANDED, PARTICULARLY IN REGARD TO 

MY REQUESTS RELATED TO THE BANK OF 

AMERICA $85,000 COLLEGE FUND ACCOUNTS 

ISSUE, BECAUSE 1) THE FAMILY COURT'S 

FAILURE TO ADDRESS DIRECTLY MY 

REQUESTS IN THE MOTIONS OF 3/13/2018 AND 

5/7/2018 WAS A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHT TO 

HAVE LITIGATIONS ADJUDICATED AS WELL AS 

VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S RESPONSIBILITY 

TO ADJUDICATE; 2) THE FAMILY COURT DID 

NOT CONDUCT FINDING OF FACTS AND 

CONCLUSION OF LAW TO SUPPORT THE 

DECISION, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF COURT 

RULES; AND 3) THE FAMILY COURT DID HAVE 

JURISDICTION OVER MY REQUESTS. I ALSO 

ASK THE COURT TO GRANT MY REQUESTS 

RELATED TO THE BANK OF AMERICA $85,000 

COLLEGE FUND ACCOUNTS ISSUE 

IMMEDIATELY GIVEN THE URGENCY OF THE 
8

A-5832-17T2

OLDER CHILD'S PLAN TO ATTEND COLLEGE IN 

THE FALL OF 2019.

Defendant's appeal No. A-1577-18 raises these issues:

POINT 1: PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE ORDER OF 

8/17/2018 AND PARAGRAPH 1 TO 4 OF THE 

ORDER OF 10/22/2018 MUST BE REVERSED AND 

REMANDED, BECAUSE THE FAMILY COURT 

MADE FACTUAL ERROR IN ITS 

UNDERSTANDING OF MY REQUEST.

POINT 2: PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE ORDER OF 

8/17/2018 AND PARAGRAPH 1 TO 4 OF THE 

ORDER OF 10/22/2018 MUST BE REVERSED AND 

REMANDED, BECAUSE THE FAMILY COURT 

MADE A CHANGE OF PARENTING PLAN 

WITHOUT EITHER PARTY ASKING FOR IT AND 

WITHOUT PROVING A CHANGE OF 

CIRCUMSTANCE.

POINT 3: PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE ORDER OF 

8/17/2018 AND PARAGRAPH 1 TO 4 OF THE 

ORDER OF 10/22/2018 MUST BE REVERSED AND 

REMANDED, BECAUSE THE FAMILY COURT DID 

NOT CONSIDER THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE 

CHILD INVOLVED IN ITS CHANGE OF 

PARENTING PLAN.

We exercise limited review of factual findings made by a Family Part 

judge. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. and Permanency v. S.K., 456 N.J. Super. 245, 

261 (App. Div. 2018). We uphold Family Part findings if those findings are 

supported by "adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Ibid. (quoting Cesare 

v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998)). Deference to a Family Part judge's 
9

A-5832-17T2

decisions are appropriate because these judges have "specialized knowledge and 

experience in matters involving parental relationships and the best interests of 

children." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 427 (2012). 

Family Part judges have "opportunit[ies] to make first-hand credibility 

judgments about the witnesses who appear on the stand; [they] [have] a 'feel of 

the case' that can never be realized by a review of the cold record." N.J. Div. of 

Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008). "Thus, any 'alleged 

error in the trial judge's evaluation of the underlying facts and the implications 

to be drawn therefrom,' must be reviewed to determine whether the errors were 

'so wide of the mark that a mistake must have been made.'" S.K. 456 N.J. Super. 

at 262 (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279

(2007)).

At this juncture, the record, litigated piecemeal over years by two selfrepresented litigants, is muddy. We cannot discern the reason plaintiff has not 

reimbursed the $38,000 to the children's account. We cannot discern the reason 

she has not reimbursed the $85,000 fund either. We cannot discern if the two 

issues are related. We sympathize fully with the judges who have attempted to 

resolve those issues, only to have the parties raise many collateral claims against 

each other, which makes definitive disposition nearly impossible.
10 A-5832-17T2

The record in this case does not provide a clear picture of the balance of 

the BOA accounts. Defendant provided screenshots of two BOA accounts, but 

it is impossible to tell if these are the accounts subject to this litigation. 

Additionally, if over $69,000 was withdrawn from the BOA accounts, then that 

would leave only $16,000 total remaining—far less than the $19,000 in each 

account alleged by defendant. It is simply impossible to determine on this record

how much money has been saved for the children. But speculation at this point

would do them an injustice. Ultimately, the accounts are to be maintained for 

the children's benefit. It behooves everyone to insure there will be enough funds 

to pay for their education.

With regard to visitation, it is inexplicable to us and not supported by 

adequate, substantial, or credible evidence, why the Family Part judge granted 

plaintiff—who initially removed the children, utterly ignoring court orders—six 

weeks of vacation. At a hearing, the judge may want to consider why defendant 

cannot be granted the six weeks of vacation, if not most of the summer, and 

plaintiff the remaining time.

Defendant during oral argument expressed a fear if the children's 

passports were not held in court that plaintiff would simply take the children out 
11 A-5832-17T2

of the country to prevent him from exercising visitation. Given plaintiff's past 

history, that is a request which warrants serious consideration.

Remarkably, plaintiff also appeals, seeking relief for which there is 

neither a basis in law or fact. For example, she seeks relief from "sanctions" 

which she claimed were imposed upon her because she took the children to live 

in Massachusetts. We can discern no basis for this claim. The overwhelming 

majority of record references made by plaintiff in her brief are not supported by 

transcripts because she did not provide them on appeal. No relief can be 

afforded to a litigant if they fail to comply with this basic requirement. R.

2:5-4(a).

The following are plaintiff's points on appeal:

ISSUE I: PARA 22 OF THE 7/6/18 ORDER ON 

DEFENDANT'S ABDUCTION MUST BE 

REVERSED BECAUSE THE FAMILY COURT 

FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND APPLY 

RELEVANT RULES.

ISSUE II: SANCTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR 

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER MUST 

BE VACATED (PARA 75 OF 10/7/16; PARA 3 OF 

4/6/18; PARA 20 OF 7/6/18) BECAUSE THE 

FAMILY COURT VIOLATED DUE PROCESS 

RULES AND LITIGANT'S RIGHTS, AND ERRED IN 

PIVOTAL FACTS.

ISSUE III: PARA 23 OF THE 7/6/18 ORDER ON 

PLAINTIFF'S COMPENSATION MUST BE 
12 A-5832-17T2

REVERSED BECAUSE THE FAMILY COURT 

FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND APPLY 

RELEVANT RULES.

ISSUE IV: PARA 17 OF THE 7/6/18 ORDER ON 

LIFE INSURANCE MUST BE REVERSED 

BECAUSE THE FAMILY COURT FAILED TO 

CONSIDER THE FACTS AND APPLY RELEVANT 

RULES.

ISSUE V: PARA 18 OF THE 7/6/18 ORDER ON 

ILLEGAL SUBPOENAS MUST BE REVERSED 

BECAUSE THE FAMILY COURT FAILED TO 

CONSIDER THE FACTS AND APPLY RELEVANT 

RULES.

We find, with one exception, all of plaintiff's alleged points of error to be so

lacking in merit as to not warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E). They are either based on a misrepresentation of the limited 

record we have, are not supported by transcript references, or have no basis in 

the law. As a judge previously said of plaintiff, she "scoffs at those court orders 

which do not weigh in her favor, but often seeks enforcement of orders which 

support her positions."

The only exception is to require defendant to produce proof of life 

insurance coverage for the girls as required in the 2013 JOD. Defendant 

provided such proof in 2015. He can do so again now. In order to avoid future 
13 A-5832-17T2

disputes on the question, defendant can be ordered, on an annual basis, to 

provide plaintiff with proof of coverage on the premium payment date. 

To summarize, we remand for the court to conduct a focused hearing on 

the issue of plaintiff reimbursing the BOA $85,000 college funds for the girls; 

plaintiff's payment into the Vanguard account of $38,000; allocating to 

defendant substantial, if not all, of the summer to adjust for the loss of time with 

his children as a result of plaintiff's relocation and the practical difficulties he 

faces with weekend visitation; and for defendant to prove that he has maintained 

life insurance coverage as mandated in the JOD. The judge shall allow ninety 

days for discovery from the date of this order, and schedule the hearing within 

120 days of this order.

Reversed and remanded as to defendant's appeal; with the exception of 

life insurance coverage, plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.