DOREEN HOUSEMAN v. ERIC DARE

Annotate this Case

 
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Published.)


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1263-09T3



DOREEN HOUSEMAN,


Plaintiff-Respondent,


v.


ERIC DARE,


Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________

October 15, 2010

 

Submitted October 4, 2010 - Decided

 

Before Judges Rodr guez and Grall.

 

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,

Gloucester County, Docket No. FM-08-667-07.

 

Law Offices of Hoffman DiMuzio, attorneys

for appellant (James M. Carter, of

counsel and on the brief).


Gina A. Calogero, attorney for respondent.


PER CURIAM


On a prior appeal, we remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, the trial judge was asked to determine whether the parties, joint owners of a dog, had an oral agreement about the dog's ownership and possession following their separation and, if they did, whether that agreement should be enforced. Houseman v. Dare, 405 N.J. Super. 538, 545-46 (App. Div. 2009). Following a hearing, the judge concluded that the parties did not have an oral agreement and entered an order requiring the joint owners to each have sole possession of the property at specified times during the calendar year.

Defendant appeals and contends the trial judge's decision is arbitrary and capricious. The arguments he presents are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.