IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

CHANCERY DIVISION: FAMILY PART

MIDDLESEX COUNTY
Mr. T, *
*
Plaintiff, * DOCKET NO.:
v. *
*
WIFE; *
*
Defendant
___________________________________

Motion for Reconsideration

Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 71-5, the defendants E.W. and A.W.

respectfully move this Court to reconsider its June 11, 2024 ruling that reversed the trial

court's judgment in part and remanded the case for a new trial on the plaintiff's unjust

enrichment and quantum meruit claims.

The defendants submit the Court's order for a new trial was based on clearly

erroneous factual findings that the trial court rejected the plaintiff's evidence of his labor

hours due to a misunderstanding of how the plaintiff recorded his hours using Microsoft

Project software. However, the record shows the trial court properly found the plaintiff's

evidence unreliable for the following reasons:

The plaintiff did not have any contemporaneous written records, notebook, or

documentation of the hours he claimed to have worked, as he admitted under questioning

from the court. See State v. Swinton, 268 Conn. 781, 806-07 (2004) (courts must ensure

computer-generated evidence has sufficient foundation and trustworthiness).

The plaintiff's hours were not directly entered into the Microsoft Project software

each day, but rather were an after-the-fact compilation that the software generated, as the

plaintiff testified. See Isaac v. Truck Service, Inc., 52 Conn. App. 545, 550-51 (1999)
(amended pleadings supersede prior versions, which become evidentiary rather than judicial

admissions).

The trial court found the plaintiff's claimed 2,486 hours of labor to be unreliable and

exorbitant, a finding well within its discretion as the trier of fact. See Circulent, Inc. v.

Hatch & Bailey Co., 217 Conn. App. 622, 629-30 (2023) (reviewing court must examine

whether clearly erroneous factual findings were harmless).

The defendants extensively challenged the plaintiff's labor evidence through cross-

examination and argument that it was unsubstantiated and excessive. See Downing v.

Dragone, 184 Conn. App. 565, 574-75 (2018) (new trial required when trial court's

reasoning substantially relied on clearly erroneous factual finding).

In light of these facts, the trial court's rejection of the plaintiff's labor evidence as

unreliable was proper and supported by the record. The Appellate Court's order for a new

trial was based on a misapprehension of the evidence and the trial court's findings.

For these reasons, the defendants respectfully request this Court to grant their Motion

for Reconsideration, vacate the portion of its ruling ordering a new trial on the unjust

enrichment and quantum meruit claims, and affirm the trial court's judgment in its entirety.

The defendants have prevailed on the merits and should not be subjected to further litigation

of these claims.

Dated: June 26, 2024

E.W. and A.W., Defendants

Self-Represented

123 Main St.

Waterbury, CT 06702
 CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, Plaintiff is entitled to a modification of child and spousal support

to reflect his current financial status, a discharge of wrongfully accrued arrears, and retroactive

modification of child and spousal support from 27th December 2016.

This ___ day of ________________, 2023.

_____________________________
Mr. T

Telephone:
Email: