MONIQUE SPICER v. WENDY WORTH

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5186-04T35186-04T3

MONIQUE SPICER,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WENDY WORTH,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

 

Argued May 17, 2006 - Decided July 27, 2006

Before Judges Parker and Grall.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Hunterdon County,

Docket No. SC-184-05.

Karl A. Fenske, attorney for appellant.

Monique Spicer, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Wendy Worth appeals from a judgment entered on April 27, 2005 in Special Civil Part in favor of plaintiff Monique Spicer in the amount of $200. We affirm.

The complaint was filed by plaintiff, a dance instructor, who worked for defendant as an independent contractor. Plaintiff's contract with defendant contains a non-competition clause which provides:

The Independent Contractor agrees that he or she will not work within a fifteen mile radius of [Worth's school] or in any way compete with Wendy Worth.

Plaintiff signed the contract but defendant did not.

At trial, both parties appeared pro se and the court undertook its own examination of them. Plaintiff alleged that defendant owed her $700 in back pay for the services she had performed. She was paid $50 per class. After teaching at defendant's school for a period of time, plaintiff volunteered at a non-profit theater group, which defendant claimed was a breach of their contract.

Defendant testified that plaintiff "never fulfilled her duties and [defendant] had to pay someone else to do them." Defendant further claimed that she fired plaintiff because plaintiff was pregnant and not performing her job. Defendant acknowledged that she did not pay plaintiff the monies owed to her but claimed that she deducted monies from the monies owed to pay defendant's legal fees for plaintiff's alleged breach of the contract.

After hearing the testimony, the trial judge determined that plaintiff gave dance lessons at defendant's school pursuant to the contract for which she was not paid and defendant's "attempt to deduct the attorney's fees that were incurred on behalf of defendant" had no legal basis. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for $200.

In this appeal, defendant argues (1) "the fact that the contract was not signed by defendant should not affect its enforceability;" (2) "the non-competition clause was valid and binding upon the plaintiff;" and (3) "the court should have allowed the defendant to prove damages and the validity of the non-competition clause."

We have carefully considered the record in light of defendant's arguments and we are satisfied that her arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant a discussion in a written decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The decision of the trial judge was based upon findings of fact which are adequately supported by the record. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5186-04T3

July 27, 2006