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.

Houseman v. Dare

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


October 15, 2010

DOREEN HOUSEMAN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
ERIC DARE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County, Docket No. FM-08-667-07.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 4, 2010

Before Judges Rodríguez and Grall.

On a prior appeal, we remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, the trial judge was asked to determine whether the parties, joint owners of a dog, had an oral agreement about the dog's ownership and possession following their separation and, if they did, whether that agreement should be enforced. Houseman v. Dare, 405 N.J. Super. 538, 545-46 (App. Div. 2009).

Following a hearing, the judge concluded that the parties did not have an oral agreement and entered an order requiring the joint owners to each have sole possession of the property at specified times during the calendar year.

Defendant appeals and contends the trial judge's decision is arbitrary and capricious. The arguments he presents are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

20101015

© 1992-2010 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.