NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2994-14T2
KLAUS BRINKRODE,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KATHRYN BRINKRODE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Submitted September 20, 2017 – Decided October 2, 2017
Before Judges Simonelli and Haas.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County,
Docket No. FM-09-1424-10.
Camacho Gardner & Associates, LLP, attorneys
for appellant (Milagros Camacho, on the
brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, defendant appeals
from several Family Part orders imposing monetary sanctions upon
her for her repeated failure to comply with previous orders of the
court. We affirm.
The parties were divorced in May 2013. At that time, they
agreed to share joint legal custody of their only child, with
defendant being designated as the parent of primary residence.
Because plaintiff thereafter demonstrated that defendant was
alienating the child from him, the trial judge ordered the parties
to attend reunification therapy with a licensed clinical social
worker.
Defendant refused to sign the therapist's retainer agreement
or cooperate with the therapy. On June 4, 2014, the judge entered
an enforcement order, directing defendant to sign the retainer
agreement and pay her share of the therapist's costs within twenty-
one days. If defendant failed to do so, the order stated that
defendant would be sanctioned $5 per day until she complied.
Defendant continued to ignore the order and, as a result,
plaintiff's contact with the child continued to be disrupted. On
August 27, 2014, the judge imposed the sanctions permitted by the
June 4, 2014 order, and warned defendant that the sanctions would
increase to $100 per day if she still refused to cooperate with
the child's reunification therapy. Because defendant was now also
failing to keep plaintiff apprised of developments in their child's
life on a weekly basis as required by prior orders, the judge also
stated that additional sanctions in the amount of $250 per day
would be imposed if defendant's recalcitrance on that obligation
2 A-2994-14T2
continued. The judge also awarded plaintiff counsel fees on his
enforcement motion.
Defendant did not comply with the August 27 order and, on
October 10, 2014, the judge entered another enforcement order,
imposing the increased sanctions upon defendant as well as
additional counsel fees. The judge permitted plaintiff to collect
the sanctions by offsetting them against the monthly alimony
payments he was otherwise required to pay defendant. On January
16, 2015, the judge denied defendant's motion for reconsideration
of the August 27, 2014 and October 10, 2014 orders. This appeal
followed.
On appeal, defendant asserts that: (1) the monetary sanctions
the judge imposed were unduly punitive; (2) the judge should have
held a plenary hearing before imposing the sanctions; and (3) the
judge imposed the sanctions without considering defendant's
ability to pay them. We find insufficient merit in these arguments
to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
We therefore affirm the orders substantially for the reasons that
the trial judge expressed in her written and oral decisions
accompanying each order. We add the following brief comments.
We review a trial court's imposition of sanctions against a
litigant pursuant to Rule 1:10-3 and Rule 5:3-7(a)(2) under the
abuse of discretion standard. Innes v. Carrascosa, 391 N.J. Super.
3 A-2994-14T2
453, 498 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 192 N.J. 73 (2007). Applying
this standard, we discern no basis for disturbing the judge's
determination to impose monetary sanctions upon defendant after
she repeatedly, and willfully, refused to comply with the
reunification therapy necessary to enable plaintiff to resume
parenting time with the parties' child.
The judge took a measured approach to defendant's defiance
of the orders, beginning with a $5 per day sanction after giving
defendant additional time to comply, before moving to a more
substantial $100 per day sanction when it became clear that
defendant would not willingly abide by the orders. Contrary to
defendant's contention, a plenary hearing was not required in this
case because there was no dispute as to any material fact. Hand
v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102, 105 (App. Div. 2007). Indeed,
defendant readily admitted that she had not complied with the
orders.
Finally, the judge fully considered defendant's ability to
pay the sanctions, and permitted defendant to offset her obligation
against the alimony plaintiff would otherwise be required to pay
her. This was a practical and definitive way to address
defendant's lengthy history of failing to comply with the court's
orders.
4 A-2994-14T2
Affirmed.
5 A-2994-14T2
KLAUS BRINKRODE VS. KATHRYN BRINKRODE (FM-09-1424-10, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
Combined Opinion