Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0359-13T2
03-06-2015
SKYLANDS COMMUNITY BANK, n/k/a FULTON BANK OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. FREDERICK CAMPOREALE, Defendant-Appellant.
Joshua W. Denbeaux argued the cause for appellant (Denbeaux & Denbeaux, attorneys; Mr. Denbeaux and Nicholas A. Stratton, of counsel and on the briefs). James D. Donnelly argued the cause for respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fisher and Nugent. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Morris County, Docket No. F-43055-08. Joshua W. Denbeaux argued the cause for appellant (Denbeaux & Denbeaux, attorneys; Mr. Denbeaux and Nicholas A. Stratton, of counsel and on the briefs). James D. Donnelly argued the cause for respondent. PER CURIAM
Defendant Frederick Camporeale appeals from a September 5, 2013 order denying his motion to vacate a default judgment and extinguish a writ of execution on his Denville properties. Because we conclude that defendant presented no excusable neglect for his failure to answer the mortgage foreclosure complaint, we affirm.
After being served with the complaint, defendant engaged counsel who sought and received a thirty-day extension of time to file an answer. Defendant, however, never filed an answer, allegedly due to his "agoraphobia, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder" stemming from uncorroborated allegations of physical and verbal assault by plaintiff prior to service of the complaint.
Default was entered in April 2009, followed by final judgment and a writ of execution in November 2012. After two stays of the scheduled sheriff sale and defendant's retention of new counsel, the trial court rejected defendant's application to vacate the default and final judgments, extinguish the writ of execution, and allow him to file an answer to the complaint. That same day, we denied defendant's emergent motion for a stay pending appeal, and the sheriff sale was completed.
On appeal, defendant argues:
I. THE COURT BELOW MISAPPLIED THE STANDARD
FOR VACATING JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO R. 4:50-1.
II. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT THE DEFENDANT'S DIAGNOSED AGORAPHOBIA, OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER AND DEPRESSION DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF EXCUSABLE NEGLECT PURSUANT TO R. 4:50-1(A).
III. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO VACATE JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY WAY OF PLAINTIFF'S MISCONDUCT PURSUANT TO R. 4:50-1(C).
IV. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT PLAINTIFF HAD NOT SUGGESTED ANY MERITORIOUS DEFENSES WORTHY OF JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.
We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). In denying defendant's petition, the trial court rejected defendant's asserted excusable neglect based on numerous psychological disorders as justification for his failure to act in the foreclosure action for nearly five years. The trial court concluded that the defense expert's psychological report, based exclusively on two evaluations of defendant conducted on August 20, 2013, was not "valid or persuasive" as it relied "solely upon the statements of the [d]efendant," and contained no treatment notes or patient history dating back to the inception of the litigation.
We find no abuse of discretion. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012). We only note, as the trial court recognized, that defendant's contention that he was psychologically unable to deal with the suit or answer the complaint is utterly inconsistent with the fact that he retained counsel to protect his interests after being served.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION