LOIS RUFFINI v. ANTHONY J. FORGIONE

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4722-05T54722-05T5

LOIS RUFFINI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANTHONY J. FORGIONE,

Defendant-Respondent.

_____________________________

 

Submitted December 18, 2006 - Decided January 4, 2007

Before Judges Lintner and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Monmouth County, DC-014121-05.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, attorneys for appellant (Dennis M. Villasana, on the brief).

Respondent did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Lois Ruffini, sued defendant, Anthony Forgione, claiming that he damaged her house and breached an agreement to pay $200 per week toward their joint living expenses while they were living together. After a bench trial, Judge Mark Sullivan entered a judgment dated April 5, 2006, awarding plaintiff $1,257.75 for damage defendant caused to her house, but denying the remainder of her claim. She appeals. We affirm.

I

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant on November 8, 2005. The trial was scheduled for April 4, 2006. On March 23, 2006, plaintiff sent to defendant's bank, by overnight mail, a subpoena for any of defendant's cancelled checks payable to Lois Ruffini for the period 2002 to 2004. The bank was unable to produce the records in time for the April 4 trial date. The court denied plaintiff's request for an adjournment.

At the trial, plaintiff testified that after she and defendant had been dating for about six months, he moved in with her. She testified that about six to eight months after moving in, he agreed to "pay $200 a week in living expenses and half of the groceries." She contended this was a verbal agreement, and that he made the payment sporadically: "I would get payments for a few weeks, then not get payments for a few months, then a few weeks." When defendant missed payments, he would promise to make up the missed payments when he had the money. This continued during 2002, 2003 and 2004, until he moved out of the house. She contended that at one point after an argument, he left her a note apologizing and agreeing to make the payments. According to plaintiff, the note was posted on the refrigerator, but eventually disappeared. She also contended that she paid for some of defendant's medical expenses, and she rented a time share in both their names; she contended he never paid for his share of the rental. Plaintiff attested that she kept track of defendant's debts to her in a weekly planner for 2004, and that according to her notes he owed her $7,425 for 2004.

Plaintiff's niece, who lived with plaintiff and defendant from August 2003 to February 2004, testified concerning the parties' "heated discussions" over what plaintiff claimed defendant owed her. She contended defendant did not deny that he owed the money, but the fights were about "when it was going to get paid and how much it was supposed to be." She also claimed to have seen defendant's note on the refrigerator.

Defendant testified that after he and plaintiff began dating, he gradually began moving into her house, over a period of six to eight months, at her request. He testified, however, that "we did not have any agreement of paying her rent." He did tell her that he "would help her out with the bills" and with purchasing groceries. He also testified that "every time we went out, we went out a lot for dinner, I would buy dinner." According to defendant, the couple "had an up and down relationship" in which he "would move out, move back in, move out, move back in, move out." He claimed that a year after their relationship finally ended, plaintiff became enraged after learning that he had a new girlfriend, and it was at that point that plaintiff began claiming that he owed her money. He contended that he paid his "fair share" while they lived together, and that "this whole case is not about money . . . it's just a woman scorned and she is out for revenge." He denied that they had an agreement or that he ever wrote a note agreeing to pay plaintiff money. He testified that at most he told plaintiff that "I would help out when I could, when I had extra money and I did." He claimed that he contributed more than $7,000 to household expenses over the course of the relationship.

In deciding the case on April 4, 2006, the judge indicated that "were this a credibility issue, I think I would have to decide it on behalf of the plaintiff, . . . because I do believe the plaintiff and her witness' versions of the facts in that the parties did live together in an amorous relationship and that at some point the defendant said he was going to pay $200 a week towards the expenses." He concluded, however, that "that doesn't necessarily create the type of debt that is enforceable after the relationship [ends]. . . . [I]t's just not the type of situation where if one side is not pulling his weight, that he has to make it up afterwards. It's not that contractual type of relationship." In reaching this conclusion, the judge relied on the absence of a promissory note or "anything approaching" a contract.

In a supplemental written opinion dated June 9, 2006, the judge found that while defendant "at some point in time" agreed "to pay $200 per week toward joint expenses," that agreement did not survive as defendant repeatedly moved out of the house and back in again. In other words, there was no "meeting of the minds" with respect to an ongoing obligation on defendant's part. The judge concluded that "while there was a short term agreement for weekly contribution by defendant, that agreement was modified out of existence by the conduct of the parties."

II

On appeal we will defer to the trial court's factual findings so long as they are supported by sufficient credible evidence. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999). We accord particular deference to the trial court's credibility determinations. Id. at 474. In this case, having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court's findings are amply supported by the record. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A). The parties had a stormy on-and-off relationship, and the trial judge could reasonably have reached his conclusion that any short-term agreement by defendant to pay a weekly sum toward expenses did not survive the couple's continuing pattern of break-ups and reconciliations. Further, the trial judge found that defendant did contribute to expenses, concluding "that the couple ate dinner out a lot and that [defendant] always paid for it."

We find no error in the trial court's denial of plaintiff's adjournment request based on a document demand that was not served until a few days before the trial.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

6

A-4722-05T5

January 4, 2007