Court Opinion

ID: 9939707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 15:11:37.182067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:49.811294
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1177-22

DISCOVER BANK,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ALESSANDRA M. MORAES,
a/k/a ALESSANDRA M.
NARDONE, and
ALESSANDRA MARC
MACIEL,

     Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________

                   Argued January 31, 2024 – Decided February 12, 2024

                   Before Judges Firko and Vanek.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Essex County, Docket No. DC-002345-09.

                   Alessandra M. Moraes, appellant, argued the cause pro
                   se.

                   Donald V. Valenzano, Jr. argued the cause for
                   respondent (Pressler, Felt & Warshaw, LLP, attorneys;
                   Donald V. Valenzano, Jr. and Michael J. Peters, on the
                   brief).
PER CURIAM

       Defendant Alessandra M. Moraes appeals from an October 21, 2022

Special Civil Part order denying her motion to vacate an April 15, 2009 final

judgment. Having considered the record and applicable legal principles, and

finding defendant's arguments on appeal are devoid of merit, we affirm.

                                         I.

       We derive the following facts from the record. On January 21, 2009,

plaintiff Discover Bank filed a complaint against defendant alleging breach of

contract based on her failure to pay credit card debt in the amount of $12,872.59

plus interest of $68.06 for a total of $12,940.65. Defendant did not challenge

service of process of the summons and complaint. She did not file a responsive

pleading, and default was entered. On April 15, 2009, the court entered a default

judgment against defendant, which was sent to her by plaintiff's counsel

pursuant to Rule 6:6-3(e).1

1
    The Rule provides:

             At the time a default judgment is entered, the clerk shall
             notify . . . the judgment-creditor's attorney of the
             effective date and amount of the judgment. Upon
             receipt of the notice, the judgment-creditor shall notify
             the judgment-debtor within [seven] days by ordinary
             mail of the effective date and amount of the judgment.
                                                                           A-1177-22
                                         2
      On June 8, 2009, the clerk of the court issued a writ of execution against

defendant's chattels. Defendant's Bank of America account was levied upon in

the amount of $1,407.54. Plaintiff moved to turnover the levied funds, which

was unopposed by defendant, and was granted by the court on August 14, 2009.

Plaintiff's counsel sent defendant an information subpoena. Defendant returned

a partially completed information subpoena and signed questionnaire to

plaintiff's counsel on July 12, 2009. Plaintiff's counsel sent defendant a letter

in an effort to resolve the amount owed on the judgment at a reduced rate on

February 24, 2011, but defendant did not respond.

      On May 19, 2011, the clerk of the court issued a subsequent writ of

execution on defendant's chattels, which resulted in another levy in the amount

of $23.10 on defendant's Bank of America account. Plaintiff moved to turnover

the levied funds, which was granted as unopposed on July 22, 2011. Plaintiff

undertook multiple execution efforts, all on notice to defendant, and additional

turnover orders were entered on April 4, 2014, and September 5, 2014. On June

24, 2020, defendant filed a police report with the Paterson Police Department

alleging she was the victim of identity theft. On November 20, 2020, defendant

filed a written objection to plaintiff's wage execution application but did not

pursue any other efforts regarding the judgment.

                                                                           A-1177-22
                                       3
      On July 22, 2021, defendant's wages were garnished, based on a writ of

execution, which was served upon her. Defendant's employer has since been

garnishing her wages. Defendant did not appeal from any of the orders.

      On February 9, 2022, more than twelve-and-a-half years after the

judgment was entered, defendant moved to vacate and "expunge" the judgment.

Defendant's supporting certification asserted various grounds for the requested

relief, including claims that: on June 24, 2020, she discovered she had been a

victim of identity theft after multiple unknown accounts appeared on her credit

report; plaintiff failed to prove to the court it was the original account holder, or

that it had a lawful security interest on the subject account; plaintiff failed to

show it had an enforceable contract with defendant; plaintiff violated §

1692c(a)(1) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§

1692 to 1692o 2; plaintiff failed to oppose or rebut defendant's identity theft

victim's complaint and affidavit; and plaintiff failed to respond to defendant's

opportunity to cure within a reasonable time. Plaintiff opposed defendant's

motion.

2
  Defendant's brief incorrectly cites the intended provision as "FDCPA § 805."
We surmise the intended cite is FDCPA § 805 because § 1692c deals with
communications, which is the basis of defendant's claim.
                                                                              A-1177-22
                                         4
      In an October 21, 2022 order entered after oral argument, the court denied

defendant's motion to vacate the final judgment, which the court noted is

governed by Rule 4:50-1. In rendering its decision, the court specifically relied

on two unrefuted facts. First, the court found defendant waited twenty months

after she discovered the identity theft to file the motion to vacate. Second, the

court further determined there were earlier execution and supplemental

proceedings, defendant's addresses "match[ed] up," and she responded to

plaintiff's information subpoena, thereby evidencing she was aware of the

judgment. The court determined that using either the date of the judgment or

the police report, defendant's motion to vacate was untimely.

      Relying on our decision in Marder v. Realty Construction Co., 84 N.J.

Super. 313, 318 (App. Div. 1964), the court highlighted that "a defendant

seeking to reopen a default judgment must show that the neglect to answer was

excusable under the circumstances and that [there is] a meritorious defense."

Considering the record presented, the court found defendant failed to meet her

burden to vacate the judgment. The court found defendant failed to establish

she moved "within a reasonable time after the judgment was entered" as required

by Rule 4:50-2.

                                                                           A-1177-22
                                       5
      Under Rule 4:50-1(a), (b), and (c), the court explained a motion to vacate

a judgment must be filed "not more than one year after the judgment, order, or

proceeding was entered or taken," which was not the case here. A memorializing

order was entered.

      Defendant appealed from the court's order denying her motion to vacate

the final judgment. In her self-authored brief, defendant presents the following

arguments for our consideration:

            (1) a defendant seeking to reopen a default judgment
            must show that the neglect to answer was excusable
            under the circumstances; and

            (2) a defendant seeking to reopen a default judgment
            must demonstrate a meritorious defense.

We are unpersuaded.

                                       II.

      "Generally, a decision to vacate a default judgment lies within the sound

discretion of the trial court, guided by principles of equity." Romero v. Gold

Star Distrib., L.L.C., 468 N.J. Super. 274, 293 (App. Div. 2021) (quoting

Coryell, L.L.C. v. Curry, 391 N.J. Super. 72, 79 (App. Div. 2006)). A court's

denial of a motion to vacate a final judgment "will be left undisturbed 'unless it

represents a clear abuse of discretion.'"       Ibid. (quoting Hous. Auth. of

Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 283 (1994)). "[A]buse of discretion only

                                                                            A-1177-22
                                        6
arises on demonstration of 'manifest error or injustice[,]'" Hisenaj v. Kuehner,

194 N.J. 6, 20 (2008) (quoting State v. Torres, 183 N.J. 554, 572 (2005)), and

when the trial court's decision is "made without a rational explanation,

inexplicably depart[s] from established policies, or rest[s] on an impermissible

basis[,]" U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012) (quoting

Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 123 (2007)).

      The court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's Rule 4:50-1

motion. Defendant filed the motion more than twelve-and-a-half years after

entry of the final judgment. Although defendant does not identify the section of

Rule 4:50-1 under which she sought relief, to the extent the motion is based on

alleged mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under Rule 4:50-

1(a), newly discovered evidence under Rule 4:50-1(b), or fraud under Rule 4:50-

1(c), it was properly denied as time-barred because it was not filed within one

year after the final judgment was entered.      R. 4:50-2.    Similarly, because

defendant does not argue the judgment has been satisfied, released, or

discharged, any putative claim she is entitled to relief under Rule 4:50-1(e) was

correctly rejected by the motion court.

      Fairly read, defendant's pro se brief argues she was entitled to relief from

the judgment under Rule 4:50-1(a) and (f) because she was going through a

                                                                            A-1177-22
                                          7
divorce from her second husband, she was not fluent in reading and writing

English when the litigation was pending, and the court did not consider her

identity theft claim and relied upon her failure to file an answer to the complaint

as the basis for its decision. Defendant further claims that her partially filling

out the "financial statement" in 2009 "is not proof she actually established the

account."

      Defendant's arguments, raised for the first time many years after entry of

a final judgment, do not support relief under Rule 4:50-1(a) and (f). "[Motions

to vacate] default judgments should be viewed with great liberality." Mancini

v. EDS ex rel. N.J. Auto Full Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 132 N.J. 330, 334 (1993)

(quoting Marder, 84 N.J. Super. at 319). "All doubts . . . should be resolved in

favor of the parties seeking relief." Ibid. That is so because of the importance

we attach to securing a decision on the merits. Davis v. DND/Fidoreo, Inc., 317

N.J. Super. 92, 100-01 (App. Div. 1998).

      However, to prevail on a motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 4:50-

1(a), a party is "compelled to prove the existence of a 'meritorious defense,'"

Guillaume, 209 N.J. at 469 (2012) (quoting Hous. Auth. of Morristown v. Little,

135 N.J. 274, 284 (1994)). "[I]t would create a rather anomalous situation if a

judgment were to be vacated on the ground of . . . excusable neglect, only to

                                                                             A-1177-22
                                        8
discover later that the defendant had no meritorious defense."         Ibid. (first

alteration in original) (quoting Shulwitz v. Shuster, 27 N.J Super. 554, 561 (App.

Div. 1953)).

      The record presented to the court on defendant's motion to vacate the

default judgment is bereft of any evidence supporting a meritorious defense to

the allegations in the complaint. Moreover, the court's finding that defendant

failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for her failure to answer to the complaint

and respond to plaintiff's applications for levies, turnover orders, and wage

garnishment over a twelve-and-a-half-year period is supported by the record

presented when the motion was decided.

      The court aptly found that defendant not only failed to take any action to

seek relief from the judgment—but she also failed to seek relief after she was

aware of the purported identity theft when she filed a report with the police

department in June 2020. Defendant waited approximately a year-and-a-half

after filing the report to file her motion to vacate. For that reason alone, we are

convinced the court did not abuse its discretion by finding defendant failed to

establish an entitlement to relief from the final judgment and denying her motion

to vacate the judgment.

                                                                             A-1177-22
                                        9
      On appeal, defendant also contends she was not fluent in English in 2009,

her native language is Portuguese, and none of the communications from

plaintiff were written in Portuguese. Defendant asks this court to consider her

community—the Ironbound section of Newark—is predominantly comprised of

Spanish and Portuguese residents.     She also asserts plaintiff has failed to

demonstrate that the signature on any "contract" establishes an enforceable

account with plaintiff. Defendant contends since plaintiff has not proven an

enforceable contract, the six-year statute of limitations under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1

bars the present action. She also claims the ten-year time period to enforce the

obligation of a party to pay a draft under N.J.S.A. 12A:3-118(c) voids the wage

executions entered in this matter.

      We preface our decision as to these arguments by noting self-represented

litigants are required to comply with the same court rules as attorneys. Venner

v. Allstate, 306 N.J. Super. 106, 110 (App. Div. 1997). Thus, to the extent

defendant raises arguments in her merits brief and relies upon documents in her

appendix, which were not part of the motion record, we do not consider them ,

recognizing defendant failed to settle the record pursuant to Rule 2:5-5(b). We

also limit our consideration "of the issues to those arguments properly made

under appropriate point headings" and do not address "oblique hints and

                                                                          A-1177-22
                                      10
assertions" that are not set forth in the point headings required under Rule 2:6-

2(a)(6). Almog v. Isr. Travel Advisory Serv., Inc., 298 N.J. Super. 145, 155

(App. Div. 1997); see also Mid-Atl. Solar Energy Indus. Ass'n v. Christie, 418

N.J. Super. 499, 508 (App. Div. 2011) (refusing to address an issue raised in a

two-sentence paragraph in a brief "without a separate point heading, in violation

of Rule 2:6-2(a)[(6)]"). It is not our role to weave together the fabric of an

argument on a party's behalf based on threads vaguely scattered amongst the

arguments that are properly identified in point headings in accordance with Rule

2:6-2(a)(6).

      Additionally, we do not consider facts which are not tied to the record.

Pursuant to Rule 2:6-2(a)(5), an appellant must present facts "material to the

issues on appeal supported by references to the appendix and transcript." Where

a party fails to refer to specific parts of the record to support an argument , we

are not required "to search through the record ourselves." Spinks v. Twp. of

Clinton, 402 N.J. Super. 465, 474-75 (App. Div. 2008) (citation omitted).

      Guided by these principles, we see no basis to disturb the October 21,

2022 order. Moreover, we are persuaded defendant's arguments lack merit. R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The same is true for contentions raised by defendant, which

are untethered to point headings, contrary to Rule 2:6-2(a)(6).          Because

                                                                            A-1177-22
                                       11
defendant's arguments about going through a divorce and not being fluent in the

English language when the litigation was pending were not raised before the

court, were not jurisdictional in nature, and do not substantially implicate the

public's interest, no further discussion is warranted on this issue. See Selective

Ins. Co. of Am. v. Rothman, 208 N.J. 580, 586 (2012); Nieder v. Royal Indem.

Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973); Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules,

cmt. 3 on R. 2:6-2 (2024). Here, contrary to defendant's assertion, the court did

consider the identity theft issue in the context of the timeliness in filing a motion

to vacate under Rule 4:50-1 and Rule 4:50-2.

      In sum, we affirm the October 21, 2022 order substantially for the reasons

expressed in the court's thoughtful oral opinion.

      Affirmed.

                                                                               A-1177-22
                                        12