HOEFERS v. JONES

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from an appeal to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, from orders of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County. The captioned parties are JANET LYNN HOEFERS, plaintiff-respondent, and WILLIAM H. JONES, SR., defendant-appellant. The matter was submitted February 21, 1996, and decided March 8, 1996, by a panel consisting of Judges Pressler, Keefe and Wefing. The Appellate Division issued a per curiam opinion affirming the Chancery Division orders substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Herman's opinion decided April 29, 1994.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court issued a per curiam disposition. Its analysis is concise: the Appellate Division affirmed the orders of the Chancery Division, Family Part, substantially adopting the reasoning set forth in Judge Herman's April 29, 1994 opinion. No additional analysis or separate legal reasoning appears in the per curiam opinion provided.

Holding and Implications

The orders of the Chancery Division, Family Part, are affirmed.

Implications: The immediate consequence is that the Chancery Division orders challenged on appeal remain in effect as affirmed by the Appellate Division. The per curiam opinion references and relies on Judge Herman's April 29, 1994 opinion for its reasoning; the opinion provided does not articulate broader precedent-setting analysis.