Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cuff v. Boss

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


April 30, 2008

ERNEST R. CUFF, JR., HOWARD AND ALBERTA LLOYD, H/W, AND ERNEST R. CUFF, SR., AND CAROLINE CUFF, H/W, PLAINTIFFS, AND LEON H. CUFF, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
ARTHUR W.D. BOSS AND ANNE R. BOSS, H/W, DEFENDANTS/THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
ERNEST R. CUFF, JR., HOWARD AND ALBERTA LLOYD, H/W, AND ERNEST R. CUFF, SR., AND CAROLINE CUFF, H/W, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS, AND LEON H. CUFF, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Cumberland County, No. C-3499-87.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued March 5, 2008

Before Judges Wefing and R. B. Coleman.

Defendants appeal from a trial court judgment entered following a remand from this court. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm. The parties have been involved in a dispute for some years involving a strip of land over which plaintiff Leon Cuff contends he holds an easement; defendants disputed his claim to such an easement. That dispute led to various court proceedings and, ultimately, to an appeal to this court. We concluded that Cuff held an express easement, and we affirmed in part and reversed in part certain provisions contained in orders the trial court had entered. We remanded the matter to the trial court for entry of a judgment in accordance with our decision. Cuff v. Boss, No. A-6883-03T1, A-0107-04T1 (App Div. Oct. 31, 2006).

The parties submitted forms of judgment, drafted in accordance with their respective views of our decision. The trial court entered the form of judgment submitted by plaintiff Cuff, and defendants have appealed.

Defendants make but one contention, that the form of judgment does not conform to our opinion. We disagree. The form of judgment adequately states what we set forth. The judgment under review is affirmed.

20080430

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.