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.

Martiak v. Molnar

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

August 8, 2013

STEPHEN MARTIAK, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
EUGENE S. MOLNAR and TOWNSHIP OF WOODBRIDGE (a New Jersey municipal corporation), Defendants, and JAY D. ARBEITER, ESQ., BAER, ARBEITER & PLOSHNICK, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PAUL J. FLETCHER, FLETCHER ENGINEERING, INC., RUSSELL I. KNUDSON, P.L.S., and LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendants-Respondents, and TRANS-COUNTY TITLE AGENCY, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued May 22, 2013

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-8973-08.

Fred S. Dubowsky argued the cause for appellant.

Clark W. Convery argued the cause for respondent Stephen Martiak (Convery, Convery & Shihar, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Convery, of counsel and on the brief).

Kasia Walch argued the cause for respondent Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation (Finestein & Malloy, L.L.C., attorneys (Russell M. Finestein and Ms. Walch, on the brief).

Before Judges Grall, Simonelli and Accurso.

PER CURIAM

This is the second appeal from an order enforcing a settlement filed by defendant Trans-County Title Agency, Inc. (Trans-County). On the prior appeal, "[b]ecause the judge enforced the purported settlement agreement without conducting an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual dispute presented by the parties' competing certifications, we vacate[d] the order under review and remand[ed]." Martiak v. Molnar, No. A-6220-10 (App. Div. Mar. 30, 2012) (slip op. at 2). On September 4, 2012, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing as directed and issued a letter opinion dated September 10, 2012, setting forth its findings and reasons for enforcing the settlement.

In its opening brief Trans-County states the issues as follows:

I. CAN PLAINTIFF BIND APPELLANT TO THE TERMS OF A SETTLEMENT CONTRACTED WITH OTHER PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION BUT WITHOUT APPELLANT'S KNOWLEDGE OR PARTICIPATION BASED ON THE SETTLING PARTIES [sic] ATTEMPT TO CREATE A GLOBAL SETTLEMENT?
II. IS THE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN APPELLANT AND LAWYERS TITLE ABROGATED BY A SUBSEQUENT GLOBAL SETTLEMENT OF WHICH APPELLA[NT] WAS UNAWARE AND IN WHICH HE DID NOT PARTICIPATE[?]
III.STANDARD OF REVIEW.
IV. ANALYSIS OF TRIAL COURT [sic] CONCLUSIONS COMPARED TO RELEVANT FACTS ...

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.