Court Opinion

ID: 9912928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-26 15:05:49.046846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:21.569861
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-1654-21

LIXIA WANG,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MIN WU,

     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

                   Submitted December 19, 2023 – Decided December 26, 2023

                   Before Judges Haas and Gooden Brown.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
                   Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County,
                   Docket No. FM-12-1081-19.

                   Howard I. Masia, attorney for appellant.

                   Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

          Defendant Min Wu appeals from the February 18, 2022 Amended Dual

Judgment of Divorce, which the Family Part entered after conducting a multi-
day trial.    The court supported its order with a lengthy written opinion

summarizing its exhaustive findings of fact, detailed credibility findings, and

well-reasoned conclusions of law. Based upon our review of the record and the

applicable law, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the court in

its December 30, 2021 decision. We add the following brief comments.

       Our review of a trial court's fact-finding in a non-jury case is limited.

Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150, 169 (2011). We owe

substantial deference to the Family Part's findings of fact because of that court's

special expertise in family matters. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12

(1998).      Thus, "[a] reviewing court should uphold the factual findings

undergirding the trial court's decision if they are supported by adequate,

substantial and credible evidence on the record." MacKinnon v. MacKinnon,

191 N.J. 240, 253-54 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth

& Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007)).

      We owe no deference to the trial court's legal conclusions. Manalapan

Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). However,

we will not interfere with "'the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial

[court] unless . . . convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or

inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to

                                                                              A-1654-21
                                         2
offend the interests of justice' or when we determine the court has palpably

abused its discretion." Parish v. Parish, 412 N.J. Super. 39, 47 (App. Div. 2010)

(second alteration in original) (quoting Cesare, 154 N.J. at 412). We will reverse

the Family Part's decision "[o]nly when the trial court's conclusions are so

'clearly mistaken' or 'wide of the mark' . . . to ensure that there is not a denial of

justice." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008)

(quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605 (2007)).

      On appeal, defendant contests the trial court's determinations concerning

equitable distribution, child support, and alimony.         We apply an abuse of

discretion standard when reviewing challenges to the amount of an equitable

distribution or the manner of allocation. Borodinsky v. Borodinsky, 162 N.J.

Super. 437, 443-44 (App. Div. 1978). Similarly, a trial court's rulings on child

support and alimony are discretionary and should not be overturned unless the

court abused its discretion, failed to consider applicable legal principles, or

made findings unsupported by the evidence. See J.B. v. W.B., 215 N.J. 305,

325-26 (2013) (child support); Gordon v. Rozenwald, 380 N.J. Super. 55, 76

(App. Div. 2005) (alimony).

      Applying these principles, defendant's arguments concerning the

Amended Dual Judgment of Divorce reveal nothing "so wide of the mark" that

                                                                                A-1654-21
                                          3
we could reasonably conclude that a clear mistake was made by the trial court.

The court carefully reviewed the relevant evidence and fully explained its

reasons in a logical and forthright manner. The record amply supports the

court's factual findings and, in light of those findings, its legal conclusions are

unassailable.

      Affirmed.

                                                                             A-1654-21
                                        4