SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3015-15T2

LOUISE DERUVO, f/k/a LOUISE

DEMEO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DANIEL DEMEO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Submitted May 23, 2017 — Decided

Before Judges Koblitz and Rothstadt.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, 

Docket No. FM-09-881-10.

Paul N. Mirabelli, attorney for appellant.

Law Offices of Jef Henninger, attorneys for 

respondent (Morgan Rice, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a February 12, 2016 post-judgment

matrimonial order denying his application to require plaintiff to 

forfeit her interest in certain property because she failed to pay 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

June 15, 2017
2 A-3015-15T2

him $2325. The court required plaintiff to pay $2325 plus $4200 

in counsel fees, but did not enforce the parties' settlement 

provision calling for forfeiture. Because the Family Part is a 

court of equity, and we defer to the reasoned decisions of that 

court, we now affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by 

the motion judge in her oral opinion on the same date as she signed 

the order.

The parties were married in 2001 and divorced in 2010 

incorporating a property settlement agreement that included the 

provision that after divorce plaintiff would obtain ownership of

the parties' business, Quality Trans Parts, Inc., including the 

property where it was located. Defendant received other properties 

and plaintiff agreed to pay him $200,000 in $6000 monthly payments. 

The parties continued to dispute equitable distribution postjudgment, until they finally entered into an April 27, 2015 consent 

order, requiring plaintiff to pay defendant $30,000 by May 15, 

2015, $20,000 by July 20, 2015, and a final $30,000 by September 

15, 2015. The consent order included a provision requiring 

plaintiff to forfeit the property if she "misse[d] any of the 

above payments by more than 30 days." The order also called for 

a $25 per diem penalty for defendant's failure to comply with the 

transfer of properties. Plaintiff was to deduct this penalty from 

her payments.
3 A-3015-15T2

Plaintiff unilaterally deducted $1422 for title insurance and 

$2325 in per diem penalties. After the lawyers discussed the 

issue, plaintiff paid the title insurance fee. An impasse occurred 

with regard to the $2325 per diem deduction.

The motion judge explained her decision, stating:

the remedy here to actually forfeit, I 

believe, based on the monies that were paid, 

would be Draconian. I know that counsel has 

said this was their bargained for relief. The 

[c]ourt noticed . . . however, for purposes 

of the record . . . that there was substantial 

compliance and this issue of $2,000 plus 

dollars is what we're talking about.

In the global scheme of things, the [c]ourt 

finds that it would be overkill to allow 

$77,000 plus of payments being made and then 

to forfeit all interest in the property 

because of what is considered a $2,300 plus 

dispute.

I recognize that the terms of the contract do, 

indeed, call for forfeiture, but I also 

recognize that that remedy, given the 

situation here, is somewhat more than . . .

fairness would dictate to be done and the 

[c]ourt is not going to have her forfeit the 

properties.

The court found plaintiff in violation of litigant's rights 

and ordered her to pay significant counsel fees of $4200.

"Because of the family courts' special jurisdiction and

expertise in family matters, appellate courts should accord 

deference to family court factfinding," and the conclusions that 

flow logically from those findings of fact. Cesare v. Cesare, 
4 A-3015-15T2

154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998). The resolution of this protracted 

dispute over equitable distribution was resolved by the motion 

judge, who understood and evaluated the equities of the situation 

in light of the hostile feelings frequently engendered by postjudgment matrimonial litigation.

Plaintiff paid substantially what she owed to defendant. She 

was appropriately punished for her unreasonable position regarding 

a comparatively small amount of money by having to pay counsel 

fees, which were significantly higher than the sum she wrongly 

withheld.

Affirmed.