Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5763-13T2
06-11-2015
CARLOS ALVAREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLOR A. ALVAREZ and JORGE MONTOYA, Defendants-Respondents.
Carlos Alvarez, appellant pro se. Respondents have not filed briefs.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Simonelli and Guadagno. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. SC-1075-14. Carlos Alvarez, appellant pro se. Respondents have not filed briefs. PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Carlos Alvarez appeals from a Special Civil Part judgment dismissing his complaint against his daughter, Flor A. Alvarez, and her husband, Jorge Montoya, following a bench trial. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Carlos testified that on June 8, 2012, he gave Jorge a check for $1,800. He claimed the money was a loan to be paid back by Flor and Jorge at the rate of $200 per month. Carlos produced a copy of the check bearing the notation, "Loan Flor Angela." Carlos concedes that he was repaid $1,400.
As father and daughter are both named Alvarez, we use the first names of the parties to avoid confusion.
Flor's full name is Flor Angela Alvarez.
--------
On July 1, 2013, Carlos gave Flor a check for $1,000. The check bears the notation, "Loan." Carlos testified that he told Jorge and Flor that they had until March 2014 to repay him $1,400, representing $400 from the first loan and $1,000 from the second.
Flor testified that she repaid $1,600 of the $1,800, and owed her father only $200 from the first loan when she received the $1,000 check. Flor explained that the $1,000 was used to pay for summer camp for her children in July and August 2013. She also testified that in July 2013, her father told her that because the money was for the children, he would consider it a gift. Flor interpreted this as a forgiveness of the entire second loan and the $200 balance from the first.
After hearing the testimony of Carlos and Flor, the judge found Flor's testimony "very credible" and determined that Carlos "had a total change of heart" and forgave the balance of $1,200 "because it was to benefit his own grandchildren." The judge rejected Carlos's testimony that he set a deadline for repayment of March 2014 and concluded that he failed to prove that there was a contract that was breached.
Our review here is limited. "We do not weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or make conclusions about the evidence." State v. Barone, 147 N.J. 599, 615 (1997). In general, the judge's factual "findings . . . should not be disturbed unless they are so wholly insupportable as to result in a denial of justice[.]" Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974). The test is "whether the findings made [by the trial court] could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record." State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964). Our review of the record persuades us that the test was satisfied in this case.
The trial judge carefully scrutinized the testimony of both witnesses and made detailed findings supporting his determination that Flor was credible and Carlos was not. The judge noted Flor's demeanor as "very calm, very direct, [and] very open." We are obliged to defer to a "trial court's credibility findings that are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record." State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999). Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court's decision is adequately supported in the record.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION