October 15, 2010
DOREEN HOUSEMAN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
ERIC DARE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County, Docket No. FM-08-667-07.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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).
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.