Preview:

a4946-08.opn.html
Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4946-08T14946-08T1
MARY LAURIA,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
vs.
JOSEPH T. GRASSI,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted: February 3, 2010 - Decided:
Before Judges Cuff and Payne.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division-Family Part,
Hunterdon County, Docket No. FM-10-283-06.
Scholl, Whittlesey & Gruenberg, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Franklin G. Whittlesey, on
the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Joseph T. Grassi appeals from a post-judgment matrimonial order requiring him to pay $1800 each
month in permanent alimony to his former wife, plaintiff Mary Lauria. He argues that plaintiff's application for
alimony could not have been resolved without a plenary hearing due to disputed issues of fact as to the marital
lifestyle. We affirm.
Plaintiff and defendant married in 1981 and divorced in June 2007. At the time of the divorce defendant had retired
from his position as a New York City Corrections Officer. Plaintiff received a 50% share of defendant's pension as
part of her equitable distribution award. The pension was in pay status due to defendant's retirement; therefore, the
monthly benefit for plaintiff would have been $1368.90. Defendant agreed to pay plaintiff her share of the pension
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4946-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 5:59:12 PM]




a4946-08.opn.html
pending submission of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would have effectuated the agreed
equitable distribution of defendant's pension. In contemplation of receipt of her share of defendant's pension,
plaintiff did not seek alimony.
Defendant returned to work as a corrections officer following the divorce. Therefore, plaintiff did not receive her
share of the pension. In addition, defendant never remitted to plaintiff her share of his pension prior to his return to
work.
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking permanent alimony. Defendant opposed plaintiff's application for alimony arguing
that she had relinquished her right to alimony and that she had no need for it. Both parties submitted Case
Information Statements (CISs) with all appropriate documents appended to them.
By order dated May 12, 2009, the motion judge ordered defendant to pay to plaintiff $1800 monthly in permanent
alimony retroactive to July 1, 2007. In addition, the judge ordered preparation and submission of the QDRO to
effectuate equitable distribution of defendant's pension and also ordered defendant to pay plaintiff half of the
pension benefits received by him for two months in 2007. In this order, the motion judge provided reasons for the
relief granted to plaintiff. In eight pages, the motion judge recited the operative facts, identified the statutory
factors governing an award of alimony, and discussed each factor with specific reference to the certifications and
the CISs submitted by each party. In her analysis of each party's CIS, the motion judge reduced various expenditures
"to approximate the marital lifestyle."
On appeal, defendant has abandoned his initial argument that plaintiff is not entitled to alimony. Rather, he argues
that a plenary hearing should have been conducted because there were disputed issues of fact concerning the
marital lifestyle. Defendant also argues that the motion judge failed to make findings of fact as to the parties'
health, education and the equitable distribution received by each party. Plaintiff has not filed a brief.
Evidentiary hearings are required only when there are factual issues relevant and critical to the resolution of one or
more issues. Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 159 (1980). Here, we have reviewed the documents submitted by the parties
in support of and in opposition to plaintiff's motion for alimony and determine that there are no disputed issues of
fact that required an evidentiary hearing. As noted, the principal source of contention between the parties was
whether plaintiff should receive any alimony at all not the amount of alimony. We have scoured the certifications
and documents submitted by the parties and have not been able to identify a single fundamental dispute of fact
that required an evidentiary hearing.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4946-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 5:59:12 PM]




a4946-08.opn.html
To be sure, Judge Bartlett amended various Schedule C expenditures reported by both parties on the post-
judgment CISs. She did so, however, with express reference to the undisputed Schedule C expenses in the CISs
submitted by both parties during the proceedings prior to entry of the Judgment of Divorce and the Property
Settlement Agreement. For example, the judge reduced defendant's monthly cleaning expense from $240 a month
to $100 because the lower amount more closely approximated the $130 spent on that item during the marriage.
Judge Bartlett also reduced plaintiff's monthly food allowance from $400 to $300 because the monthly food
allowance for the family pre-divorce was $475. The judge also reduced plaintiff's monthly budget for contributions
from $82 to $35 because during the marriage the couple only contributed $65 each month.
Judge Bartlett's analysis also directly refutes defendant's contention that she did not consider the statutory factors
governing an award of alimony. The judge identified the factors set forth in wvWare/wvWare version 1.0.3
-->
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4946-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 5:59:12 PM]

Download a4946-08.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law