On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Morris County, Docket No. DC-8116-08.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Baxter and Alvarez.
Defendant Buthaina Khalil appeals from a Morris County Special Civil Part judgment in the amount of $5522 entered against her after a bench trial on December 3, 2008. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Plaintiff Rutgers, the State University (Rutgers), extended financial aid to Khalil to assist with the cost of her enrollment in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Graduate Program as a doctoral student. In addition to an unemployment tuition waiver, Khalil received a check issued on September 24, 2001, for $3425.20 and on October 11, 2001, for $1796.80. Shortly thereafter, Rutgers learned that Khalil was simultaneously enrolled at another educational institution and had been extended the maximum financial aid package there. Accordingly, she could not continue with her studies unless she paid for the cost of her education at Rutgers herself. Because she either was unable to pay these educational costs herself or refused to do so, Rutgers cancelled her registration and vacated her grades for the term. Additionally, Rutgers demanded reimbursement of the $5522 financial aid it advanced.
Although Khalil initially acknowledged receipt of about "[s]eventeen hundred and fifty," she also maintained she had no recollection of either check, nor did she recall endorsing them. In addition to the cancelled checks, Rutgers presented the institution's pay stubs for each check. The following language in bold type was stamped above Khalil's signature: "I UNDERSTAND THAT I AM OBLIGATED TO REIMBURSE RUTGERS UNIVERSITY FOR ANY MONIES TO WHICH I AM NOT ENTITLED DUE TO AN ADJUSTMENT OF CHARGES OR CREDITS. (I.E. FINANCIAL AID)." Khalil signed the first check stub on September 26, 2001, and the second on October 18, 2001.
On appeal, Khalil raises the following points:
THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE ERRED IN HIS JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO PRODUCE CONTRACT, VERIFICATION AND/OR PROOF TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECIDING IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFFS, BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT UNDER THE CONTRACT LAWS. THERE WAS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT
THE LAW SUIT ACTION IS BARRED BY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THAT HAS PASSED ...