PETER H. ROTCHFORD v. BRIAN G. ROTCHFORD

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 
 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

PETER H. ROTCHFORD,

and JAMES G. ROTCHFORD,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

BRIAN G. ROTCHFORD,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

November 9, 2016

 

Submitted October 25, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Espinosa and Guadagno.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Probate Part, Morris County, Docket No. P-1908-2004.

Brian G. Rotchford, appellant pro se.

Russell J. Huegel, attorney for respondents.

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from the denial of a motion he filed in 2014 to vacate two consent orders entered in 2007 and a judgment entered in 2008 in a former probate action and various enforcement orders filed against him. We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Stephan C. Hansbury.

Rule 4:50-1(f) governed defendant's motion because he sought to vacate orders almost seven years after they were entered. To prevail, defendant was required to show "truly exceptional circumstances." Hous. Auth. of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 286 (1994). This rule is to be used "sparingly, in exceptional situations . . . to provide relief from judgments in which, were it not applied, a grave injustice would occur." Id. at 289. Because this motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, we will not disturb the trial court's determination "unless it represents a clear abuse of discretion." Id. at 283.

We need not recite the extensive history of this litigation and note only the following salient points. There were two consent orders entered in 2007 and a judgment in 2008. Defendant attempted several times in the intervening years to vacate the consent orders, the judgment and enforcement orders against him. These attempts were unsuccessful and defendant never appealed from the resulting orders. We are satisfied that Judge Hansbury did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant's motion.

Affirmed.