WANDA BANDINELLI et al. v. RANDOLPH STEPHEN DINI, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1737-04T11737-04T1

WANDA BANDINELLI and MARISSA DINI,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

RANDOLPH STEPHEN DINI and

RONALD ALEXANDER DINI,

Defendants-Respondents.

___________________________________

 

Argued: November 9, 2005 - Decided June 20, 2006

Before Judges Kestin, R. B. Coleman and Seltzer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Civil Part, Bergen County, L-1235-03.

Marissa Dini, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Michael N. Morea argued the cause for respondents (Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, attorneys; Mr. Morea, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs appeal from an order denying enforcement, pursuant to the Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:49A-16 to -24, of an Italian money judgment entered by the Tribunale di Pistoia in their favor on October 24, 2001. Plaintiffs seek to enforce that judgment in this action, filed in the Law Division on February 24, 2003.

Following a plenary hearing, the trial court, based on findings of fact and conclusions of law announced in a written opinion, denied the relief plaintiffs sought. Judge Robert C. Wilson found that a prerequisite for invoking the court's authority to enter a judgment enforcing a foreign country money judgment pursuant to the Act had not been met. See Kam-Tech Systems Ltd. v. Yardeni, 340 N.J. Super. 414 (App. Div. 2001). He determined that the Italian court did not have personal jurisdiction over defendants. Although not necessary to the decision, given his determination that personal jurisdiction had been lacking, Judge Wilson also analyzed the legal procedures employed in securing the underlying judgment in Italy, and he determined they had "not [been] compatible with due process of law."

We have analyzed the detail of the record in the light of the written and oral arguments advanced by the parties and prevailing legal standards. In all matters, we are bound by the trial court's findings and conclusions of fact when they are supported by substantial evidence present in the record, see Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974) ("Findings by the trial judge are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence."), especially when credibility determinations are involved, see Bonnco Petrol, Inc. v. Epstein, 115 N.J. 599, 607 (1989). Judge Wilson's findings and conclusions meet this substantial evidence test. Given the record developed, it is of no significance that the judge's findings were based primarily on defendants' testimony and that the judge discounted the documentary support plaintiffs offered. He determined that the "testimony of [defendants] has gone largely unrefuted and [was] more credible than the inferences urged by the plaintiffs."

The foreign judgment stemmed from the partition of real property belonging to the parties as heirs of a common ancestor, and resulted from plaintiffs' claim for mesne profits. We need not repeat the factual detail of the matter. Judge Wilson, in his opinion, set out the history and the parties' involvement in great detail.

Given the facts developed and the findings made, we are in substantial agreement with Judge Wilson's determination, for the reasons he gave, that personal jurisdiction over defendants was lacking in the Italian courts. Therefore, a basic requirement of the Act for recognizing and enforcing a foreign country money judgment has not been met. See N.J.S.A. 2A:49A-20a(2). The trial court found specifically that "defendants were not served personally with process" in the Italian action:

Neither defendant speaks and/or reads Italian. The Court finds their testimony that they had no notice or knowledge of the litigation concerning the money earned from the factory to be credible. These defendants were simply trying to complete the process of receiving their portion of the estate of Frank Dini. They relied on Tomei [New Jersey counsel] to find someone to take care of this matter, relied on Vescio [the second Italian attorney retained] to continue that process; and signed the respective powers of attorney based upon the representation that the same were needed for Marchetti [the first Italian attorney retained] to monitor the partition action and for Vescio to effectuate a sale of their interest. The Court further finds that the defendants executed the powers of attorney to Marchetti and Vescio for the limited purpose, not for that of taking positions on the suit prosecuted by [plaintiffs].

In the light of the conclusion that personal jurisdiction was lacking, we need not, and will not, address the due process issue, see N.J.S.A. 2A:49A-20a(1), presented as an alternative ground for denying the enforcement relief sought.

The trial court's order of October 12, 2004, denying enforcement of the foreign judgment is, accordingly, affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-1737-04T1

June 20, 2006