Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4975-11T4
06-27-2014
CHARLES TURRO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KRISTIN TURRO, Defendant-Appellant.
Kristin Turro, appellant pro se. Respondent Charles Turro has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Fuentes and Koblitz.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, Docket No. FM-15-1431-11.
Kristin Turro, appellant pro se.
Respondent Charles Turro has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Defendant Kristin Turro appeals from many aspects of her April 30, 2012 judgment of divorce, decided after a trial that took place over several days. Both parties were represented by counsel at trial. Defendant seeks to overturn the trial judge's decisions regarding custody, alimony, child support and equitable distribution. We denied her application to expand the trial record by order dated April 17, 2013. On appeal, we do not retry a case, but review the trial record to determine if the trial judge has committed legal error. See Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-15 (1998) (stating that an appellate court should not disturb factual findings of the Family Part unless its legal conclusions are "so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence").
At the time of trial the two children were sixteen and almost eighteen years of age. The trial judge interviewed them and gave their custody preferences considerable weight, given their age. See R. 5:8-6 (permitting the court in its discretion to conduct an in camera interview of a child when custody is at issue); N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c) (stating that one of the factors the court should consider is "the preference of the child when of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent decision").
Defendant provided only the transcript of the judge's decision, not the transcript of the trial itself.
Defendant also seeks to enforce certain provisions of the judgment, modify others due to a change in circumstances, and correct aspects of the judgment of divorce that she maintains do not accurately reflect the oral decision. Applications for enforcement, modification or correction of judgments must be made in the trial court. See R. 1:10-3 (enforcement of litigant's rights); Mahoney v. Pennell, 285 N.J. Super. 638, 643 (App. Div. 1995) (allowing modification of child support as of the time the child becomes emancipated); R. 4:50-1 (relief from judgment or order). The trial judge gave lengthy, detailed reasons for his decision. Defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to require discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Defendant states that her older child is now emancipated.
--------
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF APPELLATE DIVIDION