PALISADES COLLECTION, L.L.C v. CHARLENE THOMAS

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4456-07T34456-07T3

PALISADES COLLECTION, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHARLENE THOMAS,

Defendant-Respondent.

_______________________________________

 

Submitted February 4, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Rodr guez and Lyons.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Cape May County, Docket No. DC-001203-07.

Pressler and Pressler, attorneys for appellant (Lawrence J. McDermott, Jr. and Steven P. Bann, on the brief).

Respondent, Charlene Thomas, has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Palisades Collection, L.L.C. (PCL), the assignee by purchase of an account from Verizon New Jersey, Inc., sued Charlene Thomas for unpaid telephone services in the Special Civil Part, Cape May County. Thomas did not file an answer. PCL obtained a judgment by default in the amount of $1,102.01 and subsequently began the process of execution on the judgment.

Thomas is employed by Stop and Shop Supermarket Company, L.L.C. (Stop and Shop), a Massachusetts business entity with headquarters in Quincy, Massachusetts. PCL sought to serve notice of wage garnishment on Stop and Shop through its registered agent in West Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. PCL forwarded the requisite notice to Thomas. There was no objection. PCL sent to the Clerk of the Special Civil Part, Cape May County, a request for the Clerk of the Special Civil Part (Mercer County) to issue a wage execution to a Mercer County Officer. However, sua sponte, Cape May Judge Nelson C. Johnson entered an order on December 11, 2007: (1) denying the application of a wage execution; and (2) returning the application to "the Special Civil Part Clerk for reassignment to a Cape May County Court Officer." As a result, Court Officer Richard P. Murphy attempted to serve a Stop and Shop located in Rio Grande, Cape May County. Murphy reported that the Rio Grande Stop and Shop is "out of business and the building is being renovated for the next tenant, Shop Rite." Murphy notified PCL's counsel of his intention to return the writ as "unsatisfied" pursuant to Rule 6:7-1(a). According to PCL, the court retained the writ fee and Murphy, his mileage, and PCL "was left to start all over again." PCL did not appeal the December 11, 2007 order.

PCL moved to: (1) have PCL's wage execution reassigned to the Special Civil Part, Mercer County without additional fees; (2) have any excess fees rebated; and (3) enjoin future sua sponte reassignments of lawful garnishments by the court to local court officers. Judge Visalli granted the request to reassign the writ for service to the Special Civil Part, Mercer County, but denied the request to do so without the payment of additional fees. The order states:

At the time of the Request for Service there was a business in operation in Cape May County and it was proper for the Court to redirect service upon the business at the Cape May County location.

The judge denied an objection of future sua sponte reassignments of requests for the issuance of writs outside the County. The order referenced an unpublished decision from Atlantic County, which relied on an unpublished Appellate Division opinion.

PCL appeals, contending that "proper service of a garnishment against the wages of a judgment debtor who is employed by a foreign corporation is upon its corporate representative per R. 4:4-4(a)(6)." PCL also contends that the court abused its discretion by reassigning its writ to a local court officer contrary to PCL's instruction. We disagree.

We note that with regard to this point, PCL is appealing from the December 11, 2007 order. PCL did not appeal that order and it is not referenced in his notice of appeal. It is settled "that it is only the judgment of orders designated in the notice of appeal, which are subject to the appeal process and review." 1266 Apt. Corp. v. New Horizon Deli, Inc., 368 N.J. Super. 456, 459 (App. Div. 2004) (citing Sikes v. Twp. of Rockaway, 269 N.J. Super. 463, 465-66 (App. Div.), aff'd, o.b., 138 N.J. 41 (1994)). See also Fusco v. Board of Educ. of Newark, 349 N.J. Super. 455, 461-62 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 174 N.J. 544 (2002); Campagna v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 337 N.J. Super. 530, 550 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 168 N.J. 294 (2001). Thus, the scope of an appeal is defined by the notice of appeal or cross-appeal. 1266 Apt. Corp., supra, 368 N.J. Super. at 459. Therefore, we decline to address this issue.

PCL also contends that the judge abused his discretion "by requiring [PCL] to repay the requisite fees for the issuance of the writ to the Mercer County Special Civil Part."

There is no legal basis to rebate to the judgment holder the fees paid to Cape May County nor is there a basis to waive the fees in Mercer County. N.J.S.A. 22A:2 does not provide a rebating of fees.

Moreover, here, it would be an indirect appeal of the December 11, 2007 order. Once again, that order was not appealed and is not properly before us.

PCL appeals the denial of waiver of fees to the Special Civil Part (Mercer County). N.J.S.A. 22A:2-23 allows waivers of fees only if made pursuant to a Rule of the Court. The only such rule, Rule 1:13-2, permits waivers only for certain indigents. Because the fees are established by statute, N.J.S.A. 22A:2-37.1(a)(6), (10), there is no authority for us to provide a credit.

We note that the issue presented in this appeal, service of wage executions, out of county, is being addressed by the Committee of Special Civil Part Supervising Judges and the Conference of Civil Presiding Judges.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-4456-07T3

June 10, 2009