Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4696-13T3
06-05-2015
TD BANK US N.A., as successor in interest to TARGET NATIONAL BANK/VISA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERIN K. HUGHES, Defendant-Appellant.
Erin K. Hughes, appellant pro se. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Lauren L. Keating, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Ashrafi and O'Connor. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. DC-15422-13. Erin K. Hughes, appellant pro se. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Lauren L. Keating, on the brief). PER CURIAM
In this debt collection action defendant Erin K. Hughes appeals an order granting plaintiff TD Bank USA, NA, summary judgment, as well as an order denying her motion for reconsideration. We affirm.
Plaintiff is the assignee to Target National Bank/VISA (Target), which issued a VISA credit card account to defendant on December 29, 2005. Defendant defaulted under the terms of the charge card agreement by failing to make payments when due. Target in turn sought to collect the entire unpaid balance. Thereafter, on March 13, 2013, Target assigned its rights to the credit card account to plaintiff pursuant to an assignment and assumption agreement.
On December 9, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Special Civil Part seeking $1,796.12, the principal amount that was due. Plaintiff is not seeking pre-judgment interest or counsel fees. On March 21, 2014, the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and on May 23, 2014, denied defendant's motion for reconsideration.
On appeal, defendant contends that plaintiff failed to prove that: (1) the debt exists or that defendant is the actual debtor; (2) defendant "acknowledged interest rates and terms" and that she knew she would be charged interest; (3) defendant agreed to any "terms and conditions"; and (4) plaintiff has the right to make claims under the assignment agreement from Target. Defendant also alleges the assignment agreement is to be governed by the laws of the State of New York.
As for the latter argument, this issue was not raised or decided in the trial court; therefore, we shall not consider it now. See State v. Galicia, 210 N.J. 364, 383 (2012) ("Generally, an appellate court will not consider issues, even constitutional ones, which were not raised below." (citing Deerfield Estates, Inc. v. E. Brunswick, 60 N.J. 115, 120 (1972)). Second, defendant is not a party to and thus is not affected by the choice of law provision in that agreement.
As for defendant's remaining arguments, after carefully reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm the March 21, 2014 and the May 23, 2014 orders substantially for the reasons expressed by the trial court in its written opinions.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION