JUVENILE EDUCATION and AWARENESS PROJECT, INC., and SANFORD SHEVACK, individually et al. v. MARTIN SOSTRE

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4393-05T54393-05T5

JUVENILE EDUCATION and

AWARENESS PROJECT, INC.,

and SANFORD SHEVACK,

individually and as an

authorized agent,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

MARTIN SOSTRE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted January 24, 2007 - Decided February 23, 2007

Before Judges Winkelstein and Baxter.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, General Equity, Passaic County, Docket No. C-208-04.

Martin Sostre, appellant pro se.

Respondent did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Martin Sostre appeals from orders entered on January 9, 2006, specifying a mortgage payoff amount, and March 17, 2006, denying his motion for reconsideration. We affirm.

I.

Plaintiff sought to pay off, and thereby cancel, a mortgage defendant issued to plaintiff in 1988. Following a bench trial, the court entered an order on January 9, 2006, establishing the terms of the mortgage and the payoff figure. Judge Riva specified the principal, added twelve percent interest per annum, along with a five percent late fee. No late fee was included in the mortgage document, but at trial when defendant proposed a five percent late fee, plaintiff did not object. The judge determined that the total payoff amount was $51,381.28. On March 17, 2006, the court denied defendant's motion for reconsideration.

While defendant's arguments on appeal are difficult to construe, we believe he is contending that he was entitled to compound interest, rather than simple interest. The mortgage document provides for "interest at the yearly rate of 12% from the date of the note." Unless the loan document provides for compound interest, interest may not be compounded, but should be calculated only as simple interest. Quest Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Mason, 243 N.J. Super. 646, 648 (Ch. Div. 1990). That is what Judge Riva did here. Indeed, Rule 4:42-11 specifies that "[e]xcept as otherwise ordered by the court or provided by law, judgments, awards and orders for the payment of money shall . . . bear simple interest . . . ."

We conclude that Judge Riva's determination was correct. Defendant's arguments to the contrary are without merit and do not warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) & (E). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Riva in his oral opinions of January 9, 2006 and March 17, 2006.

Affirmed.

 

Defendant's appeal from the January 9, 2006 order is out of time because the notice of appeal was not filed until May 3, 2006. Rule 2:4-1(a) requires appeals from final orders to be taken within forty-five days from their entry. Although Rule 2:4-3(e) tolls the running of that time for the period between the filing of a motion for reconsideration and the disposition thereof, here forty-seven days had elapsed between the March 17, 2006 denial of defendant's motion for reconsideration and his filing of the notice of appeal. Therefore, his appeal from the January 9, 2006 order is procedurally barred.

For the sake of completeness, we nonetheless review defendant's claims as to both orders.

Although the note was never executed, the mortgage itself specifies the principal amount and the interest rate.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4393-05T5

February 23, 2007