Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2741-14T4
04-14-2016
COLETTE RAVACHE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MORRIS COUNTY AUTO SALES, INC., d/b/a MORRISTOWN BMW, Defendant-Appellant.
Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys for appellant (Paul J. Endler, Jr., of counsel and on the briefs; Edward D. Dembling, on the briefs). Pawar Gilgallon & Rudy, attorneys for respondent (Robert J. Rudy, III, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Espinosa and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. DC-1102-14. Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys for appellant (Paul J. Endler, Jr., of counsel and on the briefs; Edward D. Dembling, on the briefs). Pawar Gilgallon & Rudy, attorneys for respondent (Robert J. Rudy, III, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant, Morris County Auto Sales, Inc., appeals from the orders that denied its motions to vacate default judgment and for reconsideration. We find defendant's arguments to be without merit, therefore, we affirm.
The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement to resolve this special civil part claim with defendant agreeing to pay $1209 to plaintiff within thirty days. The stipulation contained language releasing each party from any and all claims they might have against the other. It also stated: "[f]ailure to make the payments as stipulated herein will result in a judgment being entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $2418 less credit for any payments already made, without notice to the defendant, upon filing of an affidavit by the plaintiff."
After thirty days had passed without payment of the settlement monies from defendant, plaintiff moved to enforce the settlement. Final judgment was entered against defendant for $2418. Defendant's subsequent motion to vacate the judgment was denied as was the motion for reconsideration. The judge found that defendant had failed to establish any basis for relief under Rule 4:50-1. He noted: "Here, defendant contends that counsel believed a release had to be forwarded prior to a check being issued. However, the Stipulation of Settlement contained a release, and there is insufficient evidence to show a second release was contemplated." Reconsideration was denied as "[d]efendant has failed to make the requisite showing that the October 8, 2014 order rested on a palpably incorrect or irrational basis."
Defendant argues on appeal, as it did to the motion judge, that its counsel was of the understanding that a release would be provided prior to the distribution of a settlement check and as a result the judgment should be vacated under Rule 4:50-1(a) for its mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. We find insufficient merit in defendant's argument to warrant discussion in a written opinion, Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the judge's two orders.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION