Luis–Fernando Lopez v. Elizabeth Rosa (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE GUARDIAN AD LITEM'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION # 193, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION/ARTICULATION # 194 AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REARGUE # 196

The parties appeared before the undersigned on October 4, 2013, relative to the defendant's motion for modification (178.1), plaintiff's motion for modification (179), defendant's motion for contempt (178) and plaintiff's motion for contempt (181).   The Court, Shluger, J., issued a memorandum of decision addressing those pending motions on October 15, 2013.

The Guardian ad litem has requested a clarification (193) as there exists an inconsistency in the court's order regarding Easter vacation.   By way of clarification, the mother shall have access in odd numbered years and the father shall have access in even numbered years.

The plaintiff's motion for clarification/articulation (194) complains that the court failed to enter orders with regard to the plaintiff's motion for contempt for failure to pay past child support and past tuition.   The court considered that issue but found that “the plaintiff father presented no evidence in support of his motion for contempt and therefore the motion is denied.”

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant at the time of the October 4, 2013 hearing undoubtedly assumed that simply filing a motion was sufficient and proof was not required.   Justice requires that the plaintiff (now represented by counsel) have an opportunity to present these significant claims and that they should rise or fall on the merits.   The parties shall select a mutually agreeable date on a short calendar and have this matter written in so long as it can be accomplished within one hour.   If the parties cannot agree that the matter can be heard in one hour, the parties shall schedule a special assignment.

The plaintiff's motion to reargue (196) complains that the plaintiff was ordered to pay a greater amount of the Guardian ad litem's fees and child support based on what the court found to be his earning capacity.   The motion to reargue is denied.   The court carefully considered at the time of the hearing the evidence regarding the plaintiff's stated earnings and earning capacity and specifically found that “the father's finances and financial affidavits are not credible.”   The court carefully considered the plaintiff having failed to attend the originally scheduled hearing and his lack of candor regarding his finances when it addressed these issues in its memorandum of decision.

BY THE COURT

Kenneth L. Shluger, Judge

Shluger, Kenneth L., J.