March 15, 2010
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, L.L.C., AS ASSIGNEE OF CAVALRY SPV I, L.L.C., AS ASSIGNEE OF ECAST SETTLEMENT CORP., AS ASSIGNEE OF MBNA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
BINA R. LAUFGAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, No. DC-9271-05.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued January 12, 2010
Before Judges Wefing and Messano.
Defendant appeals from a trial court order denying her motion to vacate a judgment entered against her following a jury trial. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.
According to defendant, plaintiff filed suit in July 2005 to recover what it alleged plaintiff owed under a certain MasterCard credit card issued by MBNA. The matter was tried before a jury in December 2005, and the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor. A judgment was subsequently entered on the verdict. Defendant appealed from that judgment, and we affirmed. Cavalry Portfolio Services, L.L.C. v. Laufgas, No. A-3338-05T2 (App. Div. May 23, 2007).
In 2008, after plaintiff obtained a writ for wage execution to collect upon its judgment, defendant filed a motion to vacate that judgment. The basis for her motion was that plaintiff was not properly licensed and bonded as a collection agent under N.J.S.A. 45:18-1. Defendant has appealed from the trial court order denying her motion.
We are satisfied that the trial court was entirely correct in denying defendant's motion, which was governed by Rule 4:50. Rule 4:50 specifies the grounds upon which a party may seek to be relieved of a judgment. Even if we were to consider defendant's assertion to fit within subsections (a), (b) or (c) of this rule (mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud), a proposition which is dubious at best, her motion is untimely. Rule 4:50-2 specifies that such a motion must be brought within one year of the judgment. Rule 4:50-1, moreover, specifically directs that if there is a contention of newly discovered evidence, it must be evidence "which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial . . . ." Defendant's assertions do not fit within those parameters.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.