CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICE, LLC v. BINA LAUFGAS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3338-05T23338-05T2

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICE, LLC,

AS ASSIGNEE OF CAVALRY SPV I, LLC,

AS ASSIGNEE OF ECAST SETTLEMENT CORP.,

AS ASSIGNEE OF MBNA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BINA LAUFGAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________

 

Argued April 17, 2007 - Decided May 23, 2007

Before Judges Holston, Jr. and Grall.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County,

Docket No. DC-009271-05.

Bina Laufgas, appellant, argued the

cause pro se.

Anne M. Thomas argued the cause for

respondent.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Bina Laufgas appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Cavalry Portfolio Service, LLC (Calvary) in this action to collect on a debt. Calvary commenced the action through a series of assignments of defendant's debt to MBNA. The matter was tried to a jury, which concluded that defendant was indebted in the amount of $4160.06.

The evidence was as follows. On November 20, 2000, MBNA agreed to accept $3850 in payment on a debt balance of $9549.17. In order to accept the offer, defendant was required to pay the amount due in accordance with the following schedule of payments: $90 by November 21, 2000; five payments in the amount of $200 by the fifteenth day of each month; and six installments in the amount of $460 by the fifteenth day of each month.

Defendant claimed to have made payments in the amount of $3850. Plaintiff claimed defendant made payments in the amount of $3190 and that several payments were late. The jury awarded plaintiff $4160.06, thereby granting defendant a credit against the initial $9549.17 debt in an amount greater than the $3850 defendant claimed to have paid. Defendant appealed. Plaintiff did not appeal.

On appeal defendant argues:

I. THE JURY VERDICT FAILS AGAINST THE

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THEREFORE

REQUIRING REVERSAL AND REMAND FOR

TRIAL. [NOT RAISED BELOW.]

II. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT FAILED TO SUPPLY

TIMELY REQUIRED ANSWERS TO

INTERROGATORIES, THAT ARE EVASIVE AND

INCOMPLETE, WARRANT REVERSAL AND REMAND

FOR TRIAL BELOW.

III. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT['S] FAILURE TO

PROVIDE THE DEMANDED DISCOVERY,

DEPRIVED DEFENDANT-APPELLANT OF

HER STATUTE OF LIMITATION DEFENSE.

IV. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT FAIL[ED] TO

DISCLOSE WITNESS[] NAME, CONSTITUTING

REVERSIBLE ERROR.

V. THE JUDGE'S BIAS AND CONDUCT TOWARD

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WARRANT REVERSAL

AND REMAND.

VI. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT['S] ATTORNEY

MISCONDUCT BREACHED THE CODE OF

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT [AND] WARRANT[S]

REVERSAL AND REMAND AND REMOVAL.

This court does not consider a claim that a verdict is against the weight of the evidence when the issue was not raised below before the judge who had an opportunity to hear the testimony. R. 2:10-1; Fiore v. Riverview Med. Ctr., 311 N.J. Super. 361, 362-63 (App. Div. 1998). We note, however, that there was ample evidence to permit the jurors to find that defendant was not entitled to pay a debt in the compromised amount offered by MBNA because she failed to comply with the terms of that offer. We also note that the jurors gave defendant full credit for all payments she claimed to have made against the initial debt, and an additional credit of approximately $1500, the basis for which is not clear on the record on appeal.

Defendant's remaining arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant more than brief comment in a written decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). This action was filed within time. Defendant did not file any pre-trial motions to enforce discovery. The witness who testified on behalf of plaintiff was its agent, who gave testimony about business records. Finally, our review of the record discloses no impropriety on the part of plaintiff's attorney or anything less than fair and impartial conduct on the part of the judge who presided over the trial.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-3338-05T2

May 23, 2007