JAMES T. FRANCOIS v. JANET F. FRANCOIS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1255-08T21255-08T2

JAMES T. FRANCOIS,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JANET F. FRANCOIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted June 1, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Carchman and Sabatino.

On appeal from the Superior Court of

New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family

Part, Warren County, Docket No.

FM-21-350-08.

F. William LaVigne, attorney for

appellant.

Respondent James T. Francois filed a

pro se brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Janet Francois appeals from an August 11, 2008 default judgment of divorce entered in favor of plaintiff James Francois. While granting a judgment of divorce, the judgment did not address any other issues such as equitable distribution or support. Following defendant's motion to vacate the default and permit her to file an answer and counterclaim, the judge denied the application. We now affirm.

This was a short-lived marriage of less than three years when the parties separated and ultimately, plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce alleging extreme cruelty. He made no claim for support or equitable distribution and waived any right to real estate owned by defendant. No children were born of the marriage.

Plaintiff filed the complaint on February 26, 2008. Defendant does not remember the date of service of the summons and complaint (according to the return of service, it was June 13, 2008, after four unsuccessful attempts during April and May). Defense counsel contacted plaintiff on July 22, 2008 seeking consent to an extension of time to respond; plaintiff refused to consent. The only explanation for the late response was "[a]pparently the responsive pleadings, although prepared for filing, were not timely forwarded to the Court and [p]laintiff due to secretarial vacation at our offices." Nothing was offered by way of a meritorious defense or other basis for relief.

In her opinion, Judge Goodzeit noted that defendant had failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense required under the Rules. See Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 4.1 on Rule 4:50-1 (2009). More important, although we view such motions with "'great liberality' and 'should tolerate 'every reasonable ground for indulgence,''" Nowosleska v. Steele, 400 N.J. Super. 297, 303 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Mancini v. Eds ex rel. N.J. Auto. Full Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 132 N.J. 330, 333 (1993) (quoting Marder v. Realty Constr. Co., 84 N.J. Super. 313, 319 (App. Div.), aff'd, 43 N.J. 508 (1964))), the judgment of divorce has been granted, and little will be served at this juncture by reopening this litigation.

We reach the same result regarding the motion to change venue. The cause of action arose in Warren County and venue was properly placed in that vicinage. R. 5:7-1.

We perceive of no need for our intervention.

Affirmed.

 

Defendant also filed a motion to transfer venue to Sussex County. That motion was also denied.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1255-08T2

June 25, 2009