SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-5432-17T2

 A-0943-18T2

PARKE BANK,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

2820 MT. EPHRAIM AVENUE,

LLC, JOHN A. CALZARETTO,

and KEITH LUDWICK,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

HADDON FARMERS MARKET, 

LLC, LSQ BEVERAGE CO., INC., 

ANTHONY CALZARETTO, 

WILLIAM EPP, and JOHN DINASO,

Defendants.

______________________________

PARKE BANK,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

2820 MT. EPHRAIM AVENUE,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-5432-17T2

LLC, HADDON FARMERS 

MARKET, LLC, LSQ BEVERAGE

CO., INC., ANTHONY CALZARETTO, 

WILLIAM EPP, JOHN DINASO

and KEITH LUDWICK,

Defendants,

and

JOHN A. CALZARETTO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________

Submitted April 3, 2019 – Decided May 3, 2019

Before Judges Nugent and Reisner.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Camden County, Docket No. L-3553-14.

Mark S. Cherry, attorney for appellants 2820 Mt. 

Ephraim Avenue and Keith Ludwick in A-5432-17.

John A. Calzaretto, appellant pro se in A-5432-17 and 

in A-0943-18.

Dembo, Brown & Burns, LLP, attorneys for respondent

(Michael E. Brown, of counsel and on the briefs in A5432-17; Kyle F. Eingorn, of counsel and on the briefs

in A-0943-18). 

PER CURIAM

These two appeals, which we have consolidated for purposes of this 

opinion, arise from plaintiff Parke Bank's efforts to collect on a Law Division 
3

A-5432-17T2

judgment, entered after the borrower defaulted on a commercial real estate loan. 

In A-5432-17, defendants 2820 Mt. Ephraim Avenue, LLC (Mt. Ephraim), John 

Calzaretto, and Keith Ludwick (collectively, defendants) appeal from a June 18, 

2018 order denying their motion to mark the Law Division judgment against 

them as satisfied, discharged, or released. In A-0943-18, John Calzaretto

(Calzaretto) appeals from a September 17, 2018 order for payment out of 

income, requiring him to pay $5,254.05 per month to Parke Bank (the bank) to 

satisfy the remaining balance of the Law Division judgment. We affirm the 

orders on appeal in both cases. 

I. A-5432-17 

As noted, in A-5432-17, defendants appeal from a June 18, 2018 order 

entered by the Law Division, denying their motion to mark the judgment 

satisfied.1 The tortured history of the litigation is set forth in detail in Judge 

Daniel A. Bernardin's oral opinion issued June 18, 2018. A brief summary will 

suffice here. 

 

1 Defendants' brief identifies several prior orders, going back to December 19, 

2014, as being involved in the appeal. However, those orders are not listed in 

the notice of appeal, and an appeal from those prior orders is not properly before 

us. See R. 2:5-1(e)(3)(i).
4

A-5432-17T2

There is no dispute that the bank gave Mt. Ephraim a loan secured by a 

mortgage on commercial property. Calzaretto personally guaranteed the loan. 

After the borrower defaulted on the loan, the bank filed a collection action in 

the Law Division and a foreclosure action in the Chancery Division. In the 

foreclosure action, the Chancery Division appointed a receiver in 2014. On June 

10, 2016, the Chancery Division entered an order authorizing the receiver to sell 

the property, over defendants' objections. The Chancery Division subsequently 

entered an amended order in 2017, permitting the receiver to sell the property 

for an adjusted sale price. Defendants once again objected; the court rejected 

their arguments and later denied their reconsideration motion. 

Meanwhile, the Law Division entered judgment against defendants by 

default on January 9, 2015. Defendants did not appeal from that final judgment. 

In October 2015, they filed an order to show cause seeking to vacate the 

judgment and seeking to assert a counterclaim against the bank and the receiver. 

The Law Division denied that application and denied defendant's motion to

reconsider the denial. Defendants did not appeal from any of those orders. 

Instead, as noted above, they filed motions in the Chancery Division, seeking to 

attack the order permitting the sale. The Chancery Division denied those 

applications. 
5

A-5432-17T2

After filing a bankruptcy petition in June 2017, defendants also attacked 

the judgment in the bankruptcy court, presenting the same arguments they 

previously raised in the Law Division and Chancery Division. The bankruptcy 

judge nonetheless granted plaintiff's motion to lift the automatic stay. Instead 

of challenging that order in federal court, defendants dismissed the bankruptcy 

petition. The Chancery-appointed receiver completed the sale of the property 

on August 29, 2017. 

Defendants then filed a motion in the Law Division for an order declaring 

plaintiff's money judgment satisfied. In a lengthy oral opinion, Judge Bernardin 

concluded that defendants' arguments had been previously raised and rejected in 

the foreclosure case and in prior Law Division motions, and the arguments were 

barred by the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case. 

Judge Bernardin denied the motion by order dated June 18, 2018, and this appeal 

followed. 

On this appeal, defendants present the following points of argument:

I. LEGAL ARGUMENT – STANDARD OF 

REVIEW

II. THE LOWER COURT'S JUNE 18, 2018 

DECISION FAILS TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF 

MITIGATION OF DAMAGES TO THE FACTS 

SURROUNDING RESPONDENT'S MARCH 2014 

FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO MITIGATE ITS 
6

A-5432-17T2

DAMAGES BY REJECTING PETITIONER'S OFFER 

TO FULLY PAY OFF RESPONDENT'S LOAN AT 

THE TIME OF THE INITIAL DEFAULT.

III. THE LOWER COURT'S JUNE 18, 2018 

DECISION FAILS TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF 

MITIGATION OF DAMAGES TO THE FACTS 

SURROUNDING RESPONDENT'S APRIL 2016 

FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO MITIGATE ITS 

DAMAGES BY REJECTING A LOAN AND 

JUDGMENT PURCHASE IN THE NET AMOUNT OF 

$3,900,000 AND INSTEAD INTENTIONALLY, 

WILLFULLY, AND M[A]LICIOUSLY DEFAMING 

PETITIONER JOHN CALZARETTO, CPA, JD AND 

TORTIOUSLY INTERFERING WITH THE 

PETITIONER BORROWER'S CONTRA[C]TUAL 

RELATIONSHIP WITH ITS LENDER.

IV. THE LOWER COURT'S JUNE 18, 2018 

DECISION FAILS TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF 

MITIGATION OF DAMAGES TO THE FACTS 

SURROUNDING RESPONDENT'S APRIL 2016 

FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO MITIGATE ITS 

DAMAGES IGNORING A $5,700,000 EXECUTED 

CONTRACT OF SALE GIVEN BY MOSAIC 

DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS LLC; FAILING AND 

REFUSING TO EVEN CONTACT THE CONTRACT 

PURCHASER.

V. THE LOWER COURT'S JUNE 18, 2018 

DECISION FAILS TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF 

MITIGATION OF DAMAGES TO THE FACTS 

SURROUNDING RESPONDENT'S APRIL OF 2017 

FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO MITIGATE ITS 

DAMAGES BY ONCE AGAIN FAILING AND 

REFUSING TO ACCEPT PAYMENT IN THE NET 

AMOUNT THAT REACHED $4,000,000 OFFERED 
7

A-5432-17T2

BY THE PETITIONERS' RELATED PARTY BUYER, 

BLACK HORSE PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLC.

VI. THE LOWER COURT'S JUNE 18, 2018 

DECISION FAILS TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF 

MITIGATION OF DAMAGES TO THE FACTS 

SURROUNDING RESPONDENT'S SUPPORT OF 

RECEIVER'S AND THEIR JOINT ATTORNEYS' 

FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO MITIGATE ITS 

DAMAGES BY FAILING AND REFUSING TO ACT 

AS A REASONABLY PRUDENT OWNER.

VII. THE COMPUTATION

As previously noted, the only issue properly before us on this appeal is 

the validity of the June 18, 2018 Law Division order, as that was the only order 

listed in defendants' notice of appeal. See R. 2:5-1(e)(3)(i); 1266 Apartment 

Corp. v. New Horizon Deli, Inc., 368 N.J. Super. 456, 459 (App. Div. 2004). 

We agree with Judge Bernardin that defendants' attacks on the underlying 

judgment, and on plaintiff's right to collect it, were barred by the doctrines of 

res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case. As a result, the judge 

properly denied defendants' application for an order declaring the judgment 

satisfied. Defendants' appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to 

warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm 

substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Bernardin's thorough opinion.
8

A-5432-17T2

II. A-0943-18

In A-0943-18, defendant John Calzaretto appeals from a September 17, 

2018 Law Division order for payments out of his income, in the monthly amount 

of $5,254.05. See N.J.S.A. 2A:17-64 (authorizing the court to direct a judgment 

debtor to pay the judgment in installments out of his or her income). As 

previously noted, Calzaretto personally guaranteed the commercial loan 

involved in the companion appeal. The issue on this appeal is whether the court 

erred in enforcing the judgment against Calzaretto by including, in the monthly 

payment amount, ten percent of the gross monthly income of his solely-owned

accounting firm, Calzaretto & Company, LLC (the LLC). 

We previously remanded this case for a statement of reasons, because the 

original motion judge (not Judge Bernardin) did not make sufficient findings of 

fact to support his decision as to the amount of the monthly payment. Parke 

Bank v. 2820 Mt. Ephraim Avenue, LLC, No. A-4164-15 (App. Div. Oct. 12, 

2017). On remand, the matter was reassigned to Judge Bernardin, who directed 

plaintiff to refile its motion. The parties agreed he could decide the amount of 

the monthly payment without a plenary hearing, based solely on financial 

documents and other materials they had submitted.
9

A-5432-17T2

Based on the evidence, including an unfiled version of defendant's 2014 

tax return2, Judge Bernardin found that the firm's gross income was almost half 

a million dollars a year. But Calzaretto argued that the judge should base the 

monthly payment amount on the firm's "net profits," which he claimed were 

zero. In his September 17, 2018 oral opinion, Judge Bernardin rejected that 

argument. The judge found that defendant admitted intentionally structuring his 

finances so as to render himself judgment-proof, putting all of his assets in his 

wife's name and causing his various LLCs to pay the wife "a monthly 

management fee." The judge further found evidence that defendant had abused 

the corporate form. The judge concluded that the calculation should be based 

on the LLCs gross income, not its alleged net income. However, the judge 

limited the monthly payments to ten percent of Calzaretto's total gross income, 

pursuant to the wage execution statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56. See Zavodnick v. 

Leven, 340 N.J. Super. 94 (App. Div. 2001). 

Noting that defendant was still liable for the $1.6 million judgment, the 

judge rejected defendant's argument that our remand somehow entitled him to a 

refund of amounts he had previously paid. 

 

2 At his deposition, defendant admitted that he prepared the document for 

purposes of this litigation and had not filed it with the Internal Revenue Service. 
10 A-5432-17T2

On this appeal, defendant presents the following points of argument: 

I. LEGAL ARGUMENT – STANDARD OF 

REVIEW.

II. THE TRIAL COURT'S SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 

ORDER IGNORES, DENIES AND VIOLATED THE 

DEFENDANT/PETITION[ER]'S RIGHTS UNDER 

NEW JERSEY STATE LAW AT N.J.S.A. 42:2C-1 ET 

SEQ., ZAVODNICK V. LEVEN, 340 N.J. SUPER. 94, 

773 A.2D 1170 AS APPLIED TO N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56 

AND, AS MAY BE APPLICABLE, FEDERAL LAW 

AT 15 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1573.

III. DUE TO THE APPE[LLA]TE COURT[']S 

OCTOBER 12, 2017 REVERSAL OF THE LOWER 

COURT[']S APRIL 15, 2016 ORDER PAYMENTS 

MADE BY DEFEN[D]ANT MUST BE RETURNED 

TO THE DEFENDANT.

We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Bernardin's 

opinion. Defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant 

discussion here, beyond the following brief comments. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Judge Bernardin calculated defendant's total personal income, based on 

defendant's reported income from other sources plus the gross income of the

LLC, which the judge deemed to be defendant's income. The judge used the 

total figure to calculate the ten-percent of income on which N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56 

permits a judgment creditor to execute. On this record, we find no error in that 

calculation. 
11 A-5432-17T2

Defendant, who exercised sole control of the LLC, which was his 

accounting firm, argued that his income should have been based on the firm's 

net profit, which he claimed was zero, although he admitted that its gross income 

was almost half a million dollars. The judge rejected that argument. The judge 

did not accept defendant's claim that the LLC made no profit, in light of evidence 

that defendant disregarded the corporate form, charged his personal expenses to 

the LLC, and admittedly structured his finances so as to appear judgment-proof.

Defendant's appellate brief-in-chief does not deny, or even address, any of those 

factors, and his reply brief makes factual assertions without citations to the 

record. Contrary to defendant's argument, the judge did not permit plaintiff to 

interfere with the LLC's management in violation of N.J.S.A. 42:2C-43. Rather, 

the judge ordered defendant to pay the judgment out of his income. 

Defendant's reliance on Zavodnick v. Leven, 340 N.J. Super. 94 (App. 

Div. 2001), is misplaced. Zavodnick does not address the treatment of income 

from a solely-owed LLC, nor does it address whether a wage execution is limited 

to the debtor's share of an LLC's net profits as opposed to gross profits. 

Zavodnick addressed a collection action directed at the defendant-attorney's

share of net profits from a multi-attorney partnership. Analogizing an attorney's 

profit distribution to employee wages, the court held that absent a statutory 
12 A-5432-17T2

exception, a creditor could only collect ten percent of the attorney's profit 

distribution, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56. Unlike this case, there was also no 

dispute in Zavodnick about the amounts the defendant was receiving from the 

partnership. 

Affirmed.