March 5, 2009
CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
SYED A. RAZVI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Passaic County, Docket No. DC-009031-06.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted January 12, 2009
Before Judges Reisner and Alvarez.
This is an appeal by defendant Syed A. Razvi from a turnover order for $116.54 issued to plaintiff Citibank South Dakota, N.A. We affirm.
On August 9, 2006, a default judgment in the amount of $10,540.71 plus court costs and attorneys fees was obtained by plaintiff against defendant in the Special Civil Part. The law suit sought recovery of an unpaid credit card balance. On October 6, defendant's motion to vacate the default was granted subject to the obligation that he deposit the full amount owed with the court. He did not do so.
Plaintiff levied on defendant's bank account on November 16, 2006, and thereafter filed a motion with the court to turn over the balance on the account, $2009.01. Although defendant claimed that a portion of the sum was taken from his credit line, he never submitted any proofs to that effect.
Defendant's second application to vacate the default judgment was denied on January 5, 2007. On February 8, 2008, plaintiff again levied on defendant's bank account and filed a motion to turn over the funds. Defendant opposed the proceeding and appeared in court on March 14, 2008, claiming that the matter was previously settled for the $2009.01 first levy. The trial judge carried the matter for two weeks so he could listen to the tapes of the proceedings in order to verify the claim.
On March 28, 2008, the rescheduled date, the court confirmed that the turnover order was for the balance in the account, but not in full settlement of plaintiff's claim. The judge explained to defendant that he had listened to the tape, and that the matter was not settled. The amount in defendant's account at the time of the second levy was $116.54. Although the appeal is from the turnover order, defendant may believe that it is more expansive in scope. His only point heading states:
The Appellant request[s] to re-evaluate and re-examine this alleged debt under the Law of FDCPA USC 15 §1692g(a), USC 15 §1643 (2005), USC 15 §1692k, Federal Evidence Rule 1006, UCC 1006 §1-205 and Rule 1003 Admissibility Act.
In his appellate brief, defendant claims, among other things, that "the whole case is based upon fraud and deception."
Defendant offers no fact or law that supports his contentions or that affords him relief from the judgment. R. 4:50-1. As the judge attempted to explain to defendant, the initial turnover order did not limit plaintiff to $2009.01 in satisfaction of the judgment. There were no grounds for the second turnover order to be denied, and, therefore, the levy was executed. We concur with Judge Graziano's opinion as to the merits of the turnover order. We consider the arguments made by defendant to lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.