Court Opinion

ID: 9962267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 14:08:00.748779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:12.910233
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0901-22

JANUSZ KADZIELAWA,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MARIA KADZIELAWA,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________

                   Submitted April 17, 2024 – Decided April 23, 2024

                   Before Judges Currier and Firko.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
                   Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County,
                   Docket No. FM-16-0338-09.

                   Adamo Ferreira, LLC, attorney for appellant (Adamo
                   Ferreira, on the brief).

                   Weiss, Tom & Trapanese, LLC, attorneys for
                   respondent (Jeffrey James Trapanese, on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      This post-judgment divorce appeal comes back to us following our prior

decision remanding to the Family Part on the limited issue of counsel fees. We

determined that the judge failed to require the parties to submit up-to-date case

information statements (CIS) in order to assess each party's relative financial

circumstances, and did not make specific findings as to the pertinent Rule 5:3-

5(c) factors.

      We do not repeat the tortuous history of the litigation as we have

previously set it forth in our prior opinion, Kadzielawa v. Kadzielawa, No. A-

4296-19 (App. Div. Aug. 18, 2022). Neither do we recite our extensive legal

conclusions.

      On remand, the judge considered the parties' updated CIS's and

certifications of services and conducted a hearing on September 23, 2022 on the

issue of counsel fees. In a comprehensive oral opinion following argument, the

judge considered the Rule 5:3-5(c) factors, amplified his prior findings and

conclusions, and awarded plaintiff $39,089.06. In reaching his decision, the

judge considered that plaintiff receives Social Security Disability income and

has a limited, fixed monthly budget. The judge also noted that defendant is not

disabled or unable to work and can earn more money than she does cleaning

houses.

                                                                           A-0901-22
                                       2
        The judge also found that defendant took "an unreasonable position from

the outset of this litigation," lost her appeal, and proceeded in "bad faith" by

deliberately violating the terms of the parties' settlement agreement, engaging

in unilateral communications with a financial entity in demanding an excessive

distribution from plaintiff's IRA, and misappropriating retirement assets that

were supposed to be equitably distributed to plaintiff. Consequently, plaintiff

was compelled to file a motion to enforce litigant's rights and incurred

substantial counsel fees. A memorializing order was entered on September 26,

2022.

        The judge's amplifications and analyses are supported by the record. What

was previously missing—an articulated analysis—has now been provided. In

this second appeal, defendant contends the judge abused his discretion in

awarding plaintiff counsel fees in the amount of $39,089.06, and denying her

request for an adjournment to gather more information about her previous

counsel fees.

        We have considered these contentions in light of the entire record,

applicable law, and our prior opinion. We are satisfied the judge on remand

addressed our concerns fully and that his conclusions are amply supported by

the record and by the applicable law. At this point, we see no basis to intrude

                                                                           A-0901-22
                                        3
upon his discretionary determinations. The judge was well within his discretion

to deny defendant's adjournment request, which was not made until after the

remand hearing commenced. The record shows that defendant did not submit

her updated CIS and pertinent financial documents until moments before the

remand hearing began.      We cannot fault the judge for denying her late

adjournment request.

      Affirmed.

                                                                         A-0901-22
                                      4