NEZHAT RAZEGHI, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SEYED A. TOFIGH, Defendant–Respondent.
Plaintiff Nezhat Razeghi appeals the denial of her post-judgment motion seeking to modify the parties' judgment of divorce (JOD). We affirm in part and remand in part.
We discern the following facts from the record on appeal. Razeghi and defendant Tofigh were married in 1987. They have two children. Following a trial, the Family Part entered the JOD on August 30, 2012.
On September 20, Razeghi filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking to change the terms of the JOD regarding the disposition of the marital residence, so that she could continue to live there, and to correct certain alleged errors with respect to equitable distribution. Tofigh filed a cross-motion, opposing the relief sought by Razeghi and seeking to compel her cooperation in selling the marital home as provided in the JOD, as well as other relief not relevant to this appeal.
Although oral argument was requested, the judge decided the motions on the papers. She denied Razeghi's motion with respect to the marital residence and granted the cross-motion requiring her cooperation in its sale. The judge ordered that Razeghi receive a credit in the amount of $14,611 towards equitable distribution, based upon Tofigh's concessions concerning three accounts. She denied the remainder of the relief sought in the motions.
This appeal followed. Razeghi argues that the motion judge erred in refusing to make the remaining equitable-distribution corrections sought in her motion.
Our disposition of this appeal has been hampered by Razeghi's failure to comply with the court rules concerning documents to be provided to this court. First, she failed to order a transcript of the oral decision placed on the record, as required by Rule 2:5–3(a). That omission has now been corrected. Second, other than the notice of cross-motion, she failed to include the papers filed by Tofigh in opposition to her motion. See R. 2:6–1(a)(1). Because we do not have those documents, we cannot determine whether the disputed items were the subject of error, as Razeghi contends, or whether there was an effort on Razeghi's part to reargue discretionary decisions made by the trial judge, as the judge concluded in her oral decision when denying relief.
Our examination of the partial record before us suggests that at least some of Razeghi's assertions may be correct. The Wells Fargo account ending in 6436 may be the same asset as the AXA account. The PNC account ending in 4730 and the Prudential account ending in 2040 may also be the same account. As a result, they may have been double counted for the purposes of equitable distribution. Consequently, we have determined to remand to the Family Part for further consideration of those issues. Although we understand the judge's reluctance to run up counsel fees with needless oral argument, such argument might facilitate her reconsideration of the remand issues. The judge has the option of requiring the parties to attend mediation prior to oral argument. The remand is limited to the question of whether there were double counting errors in the calculation of equitable distribution as noted above.
The trial judge found on the basis of the proofs and Razeghi's failure to provide discovery and updated financial information that some of the accounts disputed by Razeghi were still in existence and subject to equitable distribution. Given our deference to the trial judge's findings of fact, those decisions are affirmed for the reasons set forth in the judge's oral decision.
Affirmed in part, remanded in part.