From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carr v. Burgess

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Apr 5, 1993
264 N.J. Super. 10 (App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

Argued March 16, 1993 —

Decided April 5, 1993.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, whose decision is reported at 264 N.J. Super. 191, 623 A.2d 1384 (Ch.Div. 1993).

Before Judges MICHELS, BILDER and WALLACE.

Noel S. Tonneman argued the cause for appellants ( Wilentz, Goldman Spitzer, attorneys; Warren W. Wilentz, of counsel; Mr. Tonneman, on the brief).

John A. Craner argued the cause for respondent ( Craner, Nelson, Satkin Scheer, attorneys; Mr. Craner, on the brief).


The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Epstein in his opinion reported at 264 N.J. Super. 191, 623 A.2d 1384 (Ch.Div. 1993). We are satisfied that the findings of fact are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record and find no sound reason or justification to interfere with them. See Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 , 484, 323 A.2d 495 (1974).


Summaries of

Carr v. Burgess

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Apr 5, 1993
264 N.J. Super. 10 (App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Carr v. Burgess

Case Details

Full title:JOYCE CARR, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ARTHUR W. BURGESS, EXECUTOR OF THE…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Apr 5, 1993

Citations

264 N.J. Super. 10 (App. Div. 1993)
623 A.2d 1384

Citing Cases

Kay v. Kay

We leave it to the trial court to determine whether the estate's claims should be addressed in the Family…

In re Kokinakos

We leave it to the Chancery Division to determine whether the claims should be addressed in the Family Part…