Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1300-13T2
02-02-2016
MARION RUANE, PATRICK RUANE, and OAK GLEN ACRES, LLC, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. OAK GLEN, LLC, Defendant, and BEZALEL GROSSBERGER, a/k/a BEN GROSS, Defendant-Appellant.
Ben Gross, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Respondents have not filed briefs.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Nugent and Higbee. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-1029-11. Ben Gross, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Respondents have not filed briefs. PER CURIAM
Defendant, Ben Gross, appeals two orders dated October 15, 2013, and March 18, 2014, denying his motions for reconsideration. We note defendant's briefs and appendices submitted for our review were muddled and lacking in procedural formalities designed for appellate review. However, we discern the following facts and procedural history from the record on appeal.
We have dismissed appeals before for failing to adhere to procedural guidelines. See Cherry Hill Dodge, Inc. v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 194 N.J. Super. 282, 283 (App. Div. 1984) (dismissing an appeal for procedural deficiencies); see also In re Zakhari, 330 N.J. Super. 493, 495 (App. Div. 2000) (holding the court was loathe to dismiss an appeal for procedural deficiencies but did so because the deficiencies made it impossible to properly review the matter). --------
Defendant attempted to purchase a property from plaintiffs, Marion and Patrick Ruane, in 2006, but the plans to purchase the property were unsuccessful. Before the purchase was finalized, defendant asserted he invested effort and expense to improve the property, including erecting a fence, posting signs, and obtaining certifications.
Plaintiffs and defendant signed releases giving up any claims involving the property as part of a settlement agreement for an action brought for specific performance. However, before obtaining the releases, defendant filed a construction lien against the property for his work performed in anticipation of the sale. Defendant also filed a lis pendens on the property sometime after the releases were signed.
Upon learning about the lien and lis pendens, plaintiffs brought an order to show cause in front of Judge Patricia Del Bueno Cleary. At the order to show cause hearing on April 15, 2011, Judge Cleary acknowledged there was a long and tortured litigation history between the two parties. Judge Cleary held the construction lien and lis pendens should be discharged based on the signed releases. She also awarded counsel fees and costs to plaintiffs. The amount of the award was altered in a subsequent order dated May 3, 2011. Defendant then filed multiple motions for reconsideration.
We have difficulty discerning what the motions for reconsideration were requesting. Defendant's October 15, 2013 motion was for "injunctive and permanent relief." Judge Joseph P. Quinn denied the motion, writing "This application is denied. The motion papers state no legal grounds for relief and are not understandable." Defendant's March 18, 2014 motion asked the court to "review entire file." Judge Quinn denied this motion, writing "[m]otion is not capable of understanding. Moreover, as set forth in [the] letter of [plaintiffs' counsel] no proper service and overly broad."
Defendant then filed this appeal. At oral argument, we attempted to decipher defendant's arguments. It was clear to us, defendant did not have a coherent theory, and he was merely trying to reargue the property issues settled approximately ten years ago. The only thing that was clear was that he wanted us to reopen all the prior litigation.
As to the trial court's denial of his motions for reconsideration, we note the grounds for reconsideration are limited. State v. Puryear, 441 N.J. Super. 280, 294 (App. Div. 2015). Reconsideration is considered only when "1) the [c]ourt has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence." Ibid. (alterations in original) (quoting Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 288 (App. Div. 2010)).
As a result, "a trial court's reconsideration decision will be left undisturbed unless it represents a clear abuse of discretion." Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. ABC Caging Fulfillment, 440 N.J. Super. 378, 382 (App. Div. 2015). A court abuses its discretion "when a decision is made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis." Ibid. (quoting Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002)).
Defendant failed to demonstrate how Judge Quinn abused his discretion. Defendant signed a release giving up any claim to plaintiffs' property. Ten years later, defendant was still trying to assert a claim to the property under the guise of motions for reconsideration. We do not doubt Judge Quinn could not decode a coherent claim in defendant's motion for "injunctive and permanent relief" and motion to "review entire file." We find Judge Quinn did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant's motions.
We do not address defendant's other points on appeal because his arguments are unfounded or without sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION