RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0061-18T1

C.P.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

E.P.,

Defendant-Respondent.

__________________________

Submitted October 8, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Accurso and Gilson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket 

No. FM-20-1843-17.

C.P., appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, the former husband, appeals from a final judgment of divorce, 

entered on June 5, 2018, following a bench trial. Plaintiff also appeals from an 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 21, 2019
2

A-0061-18T1

August 10, 2018 order denying his motion for reconsideration. Having 

considered plaintiff's arguments in light of the record and law, we affirm.

I.

The parties were married in May 2005. At the time of their divorce, there 

were two surviving children: a daughter, born in August 2009; and a son, born 

in July 2012. A third child had been stillborn during the marriage. Plaintiff 

filed for divorce in May 2017.

The matter was tried before Judge Thomas J. Walsh on June 4, 2018. Both 

parties testified at trial; plaintiff was represented by counsel and defendant 

represented herself. The following day, on June 5, 2018, Judge Walsh made his 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, which he placed on the record.

Judge Walsh initially noted that the parties had presented limited evidence 

and, thus, he made his findings based on their testimony and the three exhibits 

they had submitted into evidence. Judge Walsh also noted that he did not 

address certain issues, such as future college expenses, because the parties failed 

to testify about and present evidence concerning those issues.

Plaintiff sought to annul the marriage, contending that defendant had 

committed fraud by not disclosing that she had come to the country using a false 

passport. Judge Walsh found that defendant had testified credibly that plaintiff 
3

A-0061-18T1

knew both before and during the marriage that she had come into the country 

using a false passport. The judge then found that there were no grounds for an 

annulment because plaintiff knew of defendant's immigration status before and 

during the marriage, when the parties worked together to "correct the 

immigration status." Instead, Judge Walsh found that there were grounds for a 

divorce based on irreconcilable differences. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-2(i). He therefore

granted a divorce on that basis. 

The judge then addressed and made findings concerning custody, child 

support, alimony, and equitable distribution. With regard to custody, the judge 

reviewed the governing statute, N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, and made findings on the factors 

identified in the statute based on the best interests of the children. See N.J.S.A.

9:2-4a. The judge ruled that the parties will share joint legal and physical 

custody of the children, with defendant being the parent of primary residential 

custody and plaintiff the parent of alternate residential custody. Judge Walsh 

also established a schedule for each parent to spend time with the children, 

including vacation time. 

Next, the judge addressed the related issue of the children's passports. In 

that regard, the parties were ordered to cooperate in obtaining passports for the 

children, defendant was to hold the passports when they were not being used, 
4

A-0061-18T1

and either parent was allowed to travel outside the country with the children 

during his or her vacation time. 

Turning to child support, Judge Walsh found that plaintiff had an annual 

income of $95,000 and defendant had an annual income of $34,650. He then 

used the child support guidelines to calculate that plaintiff should pay defendant 

child support of $113 per week. In response to plaintiff's motion for 

reconsideration, the court later reduced the child support amount to $56 per 

week.

In addition, Judge Walsh addressed alimony. He considered the factors 

under the governing statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b), and the relevant case law. 

He ordered plaintiff to pay defendant limited duration alimony of $325 per week 

for seven years. He also ordered that each party was to maintain life insurance 

to cover their alimony and child support obligations. Specifically, defendant 

was to maintain $100,000 in life insurance until the children were emancipated 

and plaintiff was to maintain $300,000 in life insurance until his alimony 

obligation was completed, thereafter plaintiff was to maintain $100,000 in life 

insurance until the children were emancipated.

Finally, Judge Walsh addressed equitable distribution. After reviewing 

the applicable statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.1, the judge found that there were two 
5

A-0061-18T1

assets at issue: (1) plaintiff's pension; and (2) the marital home. Addressing 

plaintiff's pension, the judge ruled that defendant was entitled to a fifty percent 

share of the pension during the time that the parties were married. The judge 

directed that a qualified domestic relations order was to be prepared and entered 

to effectuate the distribution of the pension. 

Addressing the marital home, Judge Walsh ruled that plaintiff was entitled 

to sixty percent of the net equity and defendant was entitled to forty percent of 

the net equity. The judge made that ruling based on the amount of money that 

plaintiff had paid to maintain the marital home. The court also allowed plaintiff 

to purchase defendant's share of the home and set up a procedure to effectuate 

such a purchase, if plaintiff selected that option. 

II.

Plaintiff now appeals from the judgment of divorce and the August 10, 

2018 order denying his motion for reconsideration. On appeal, plaintiff argues 

that the trial court erred by (1) denying his request for an annulment; (2) ordering 

him to pay alimony; (3) designating defendant the parent of primary residential 

custody; (4) requiring plaintiff to cooperate in obtaining passports for the 

children; (5) ordering him to maintain life insurance to cover his obligations; (6) 

awarding defendant a share of his pension; and (7) ordering the equity in the 
6

A-0061-18T1

marital home to be distributed. Defendant did not file any responding brief on 

this appeal.

Our review of the trial court's factual findings is limited. Elrom v. Elrom, 

439 N.J. Super. 424, 433 (App. Div. 2015) (citing Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 

394, 411 (1998)). "Generally, 'findings by the trial court are binding on appeal 

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

Cesare, 154 N.J. at 411-12). "In matrimonial matters, this '[d]eference is 

especially appropriate when the evidence is largely testimonial and involves 

questions of credibility,'. . . ." Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting Cesare, 154 

N.J. at 412). Accordingly, we will not overturn an equitable distribution, child 

support, or alimony award unless there was a clear abuse of discretion, a failure 

to correctly apply governing legal principles, or the factual findings were not 

supported by the record. See Genovese v. Genovese, 392 N.J. Super. 215, 222-

23 (App. Div. 2007) (recognizing that equitable distribution will be upheld 

unless the trial court "mistakenly exercised its broad authority to divide the 

parties' property") (citing Valentino v. Valentino, 309 N.J. Super. 334, 339 

(App. Div. 1998)); see also Elrom, 439 N.J. Super. at 434, 438 (reviewing a trial 

court's imputation of income and child support determination for an abuse of 
7

A-0061-18T1

discretion); Robertson v. Robertson, 381 N.J. Super. 199, 206 (App. Div. 2005) 

(reviewing a trial court's award of alimony for an abuse of discretion). 

Applying that standard, we discern no basis to disturb any of the rulings 

plaintiff challenges on this appeal. In short, plaintiff disputes the factual 

findings made by Judge Walsh. He cites no material facts overlooked by Judge 

Walsh; nor does he cite any law supporting his contentions. The facts found by 

Judge Walsh were supported by substantial credible evidence. In making his 

legal conclusions, Judge Walsh applied the factual findings to the established 

law. Plaintiff established no grounds for an annulment. See N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1. 

Judge Walsh also correctly applied the law concerning custody, child support, 

alimony, and equitable distribution. See N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 to -4a; N.J.S.A. 2A:34-

23(a) to (b); N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.1. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 

divorce.

We also affirm the August 10, 2018 order denying defendant's motion for 

reconsideration. We review such an order under an abuse of discretion standard. 

Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. ABC Caging Fulfillment, 440 N.J. Super. 378, 382 

(App. Div. 2015) (citing Hous. Auth. of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 283 

(1994)). Here, we discern no such abuse.

Affirmed.