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.

Educap, Inc. v. Davis

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

June 4, 2013

EDUCAP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT A. DAVIS, Defendant, and AMANDA DAVIS, Defendant-Respondent.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Telephonically Argued May 20, 2013

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-2124-11.

Jeffrey H. Ward argued the cause for appellant.

Dinah E. Hendon argued the cause for respondent (Lasser Hochman, L.L.C., attorneys; Ms. Hendon, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges Fisher and St. John.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Educap, Inc. appeals a judgment based on a verdict, rendered by the judge after a bench trial, that defendant Amanda Davis was not a party to, and therefore not liable to repay, a student loan. In applying our familiar standard of review in nonjury matters, we affirm.

Many of the facts were undisputed. Defendant Robert Davis divorced Amanda's mother in 2007 while Amanda was a student at Sacred Heart University. Her parents' property settlement agreement obligated Robert to pay the tuition and all other costs associated with Amanda's college education. The parties also did not dispute that Robert applied for the student loan in question via the internet and is obligated to repay it; in fact, prior to trial, summary judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and against Robert in the amount of $80, 104.15.

But plaintiff also sought relief against Amanda, who disputed she entered into the loan agreement – a dispute that was the subject of a two-day trial. After weighing the evidence and the witnesses' credibility, Judge Anthony J. Graziano ruled in Amanda's favor, and plaintiff appeals, arguing:

I. THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
II. THE DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HER BURDEN OF PROOF WITH ANY SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL.
III. THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT WAS INAPPLICABLE TO DEFENDANT.

We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add ...


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.