SHAUNPEN ZHOU v. ROBERT M. SCHECHTER

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4011-05T54011-05T5

SHAUNPEN ZHOU,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT M. SCHECHTER,

Defendant-Respondent.

_______________________________

 

Submitted October 18, 2006 - Decided November 28, 2006

Before Judges Winkelstein and Fuentes.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil

Part, Middlesex County, Docket No.

DC-14683-05.

Shaunpen Zhou, appellant pro se.

Robert M. Schechter, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Shaunpen Zhou sued his former attorney Robert M. Schechter, seeking $2,915 in damages. Plaintiff claimed that defendant wrongfully deducted this sum from a $10,000 retainer he had paid defendant to secure his professional services in connection with a pending matrimonial case. At trial, the Law Division Judge considered the testimony of the parties, and entered judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff now appeals arguing that the trial court was biased against him, resulting in a violation of his constitutional right to due process of law. We disagree and affirm.

We gather the following facts from the evidence presented at trial. On June 28, 2005, the Family Part of the Chancery Division of the Superior Court in Middlesex County entered a final judgment of divorce between plaintiff and Shufen He. Plaintiff appeared in this matter pro se. On this same date, plaintiff allegedly submitted a fraudulent judgment of divorce, granting him residential custody of the couple's child, as well as other relief that was beyond the scope of the relief granted by the Family Part.

In response, plaintiff's former spouse retained counsel and filed an Order to Show Cause alleging that plaintiff had committed fraud by preparing and submitting to the court the allegedly false judgment. The Family Part Judge entered the Order to Show Cause, and directed plaintiff to appear on July 29, 2005, to respond to the allegations raised therein.

On July 19, 2005, plaintiff met with defendant for a free consultation regarding the Order to Show Cause. On July 20, plaintiff gave defendant a $10,000 retainer as an initial deposit. Defendant did not personally receive these funds from plaintiff. On that day, defendant was out of the office because his mother had just died.

Plaintiff's response to the Order to Show Cause then pending before the Family Part was due on July 21, 2005. As an accommodation for his mother's passing, defendant requested an adjournment of the return date. Defendant claims that he informed plaintiff about this adjournment request. On July 25, plaintiff signed an "Agreement to Provide Legal Services," officially acknowledging defendant as his counsel. The Agreement also reflected defendant's receipt of the $10,000 retainer. According to plaintiff, he first learned about the adjournment at this meeting.

Purportedly unhappy about the adjournment, plaintiff terminated defendant as his counsel. The termination took place on August 15, 2005, more than two weeks after plaintiff became aware that the return date of the Order to Show Cause had been adjourned. Acting upon plaintiff's termination, defendant refunded to plaintiff $7,085 of the original $10,000 retainer, deducting $2,915 to cover the cost of professional services rendered during the interim period.

Against these facts, the trial court found that defendant had not breached his contract with plaintiff. The court further found that defendant had the right to retain the $2,915 from the original $10,000 deposit, as compensation for the work that he had performed before he was terminated. We are satisfied that the record amply supports the court's findings. See Rova Farms Resort, Inc., v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). The balance of plaintiff's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-4011-05T5

November 28, 2006