Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Romano v. Bad Boys Bail Bonds

August 12, 2009

ANTHONY ROMANO, MOVANT-APPELLANT,
v.
BAD BOYS BAIL BONDS, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, DJ-07.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted January 7, 2009

Before Judges Rodríguez and Payne.

Anthony Romano (Anthony) appeals from the June 6, 2008 order, denying his motion to vacate a Nevada default judgment against him for $143,721.79 in favor of Bad Boys Bail Bonds (BBBB). The Nevada judgment was docketed in New Jersey pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:49A-25 to -33 (UEFJA). We affirm.

These are the salient facts. In early 2002, Anthony's son, Robert Romano, was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada. He remained in custody in Nevada until January 2004. At that time, Anthony agreed to post bail for Robert. He paid $4,000 to BBBB*fn1 to post a $100,000 bail bond for Robert and signed a Contract of Indemnity and a Security Agreement. It was explained to Anthony that if Robert did not appear, Anthony would lose the $4,000 and be liable for $100,000 plus costs to BBBB.

Anthony concedes that he executed the documents. However, he alleges that the documents were illegible. Upon the posting of the bond by BBBB, Robert was released.

In February 2006, Robert failed to appear for trial. BBBB was notified by the court. BBBB's principal, Michael Accardi, asserts that he personally called Anthony and advised him that his son had failed to appear and Anthony was liable for $100,000. Anthony denies such notice.

BBBB paid the Las Vegas District Court $100,000 for the forfeiture of the bail bond for Robert. BBBB then sent Anthony a final demand letter for $100,000 plus costs and fees.

According to BBBB, on February 19, 2007, process server Scott Brogan of J&K Investigative Services, Inc., of Somerville, personally served Anthony at his home in Toms River with a copy of the complaint filed against him in District Court, Clark County, Nevada. Brogan filed an affidavit of service with the District Court, Clark County, Nevada. Anthony denies being served.

Default judgment was entered in Clark County on behalf of BBBB and against Anthony, in the sum of $143,721.79, which included costs. The Nevada judgment against Anthony was docketed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County.

Anthony moved in the Superior Court to vacate the default judgment. At about the same time, Robert was captured in Key West, Florida. In his supporting motion papers, Anthony argued that he was denied due process for the following reasons: (1) the State of Nevada lacked personal jurisdiction over him, and (2) BBBB failed to provide him with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Judge John A. Peterson, Jr., denied the motion, finding that "clearly" a showing of due process had been afforded to Anthony.

On appeal, Anthony contends that the judge "erred in finding that [Anthony] had the required minimum contacts with the State of Nevada and was thus subject to Nevada's jurisdiction." We are not persuaded.

The UEFJA, N.J.S.A. 2A:49A-25, requires that the judgment debtor be afforded due process in the forum state. Sonntag Reporting Serv. Ltd. v. Ciccarelli, 374 N.J. Super. 533, 538 (App. Div. 2005). Due process denial occurs when "the rendering state 1) lacked personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor or, 2) lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and 3) failed to provide the judgment debtor adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard." Choi v. Kim, 50 F.3d 244, 248 (3d Cir. 1995); see also Security Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. TFS Ins. Agency, Inc., 279 N.J. Super. 419, 423 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 141 N.J. 95 (1995). Due process "requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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