MARINA ASSOCIATES v. DARYL FALLAS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 only binding 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

MARINA ASSOCIATES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DARYL FALLAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

October 12, 2016

Submitted September 21, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Simonelli and Carroll.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. L-003428-93.

Daryl Fallas, appellant pro se.

Phillip S. Van Embden, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Teri L. Giordano, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

On April 21, 1994, plaintiff Marina Associates d/b/a Harrah's Casino Hotel, Atlantic City obtained a $7830 default judgment against defendant Daryl Fallas in the Law Division, Atlantic County. The action arose out of defendant's failure to repay a casino credit that plaintiff had extended to him.

In April 2010, defendant filed a motion in the Law Division to vacate the judgment. Defendant contended that he had not been properly served with the summons and complaint and that he first became aware of the judgment "on or about April 9, 2010 while searching records from Trenton." Defendant also argued that because the complaint sought damages under $15,000, it should have been filed in the Special Civil Part. The trial court denied the motion, as well as defendant's subsequent motions for reconsideration. Defendant appealed, and we affirmed in an unpublished opinion, finding that his arguments lacked sufficient merit to warrant discussion. Marina Assocs. v. Fallas, No. A-2230-10 (App. Div. Oct. 26, 2012).

In May 2013, plaintiff moved to renew the judgment for an additional twenty years, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:14-5.1 Defendant opposed the motion, and also moved to change venue to the Special Civil Part, Monmouth County. On June 21, 2013, Judge James E. Isman denied defendant's motion to change venue, finding that venue was properly laid in Atlantic County and that defendant's motion was untimely.2 On June 24, 2013, Judge Isman granted plaintiff's motion to renew the 1994 judgment. Relying on Kronstadt v. Kronstadt, 238 N.J. Super. 614, 618 (App. Div. 1990), the judge found that plaintiff satisfied the requirements of N.J.S.A. 2A:14-5. Upon its renewal, the judgment included additional post-judgment interest of $5369.77 plus $30 costs.

Defendant again appealed, but the appeal was dismissed at defendant's request. Marina Assocs. v. Fallas, No. A-5279-12 (App. Div. Oct. 3, 2014). Defendant simultaneously moved to "reverse/vacate" the June 24, 2013 order renewing the default judgment. He argued that plaintiff was not entitled to the additional post-judgment interest because it failed to mitigate damages, and that the Atlantic County Law Division lacked jurisdiction.

The trial court denied the motion on October 24, 2014. In a written opinion, Judge Donna M. Taylor concluded that defendant essentially sought reconsideration of the June 24, 2013 order. As such, the motion was untimely under Rule 4:49-2 because defendant had not filed it within twenty days after service of the prior order. Addressing the merits, Judge Taylor reviewed the doctrine of mitigation of damages and determined it generally applies only to the underlying events of a cause of action. The judge noted that defendant cited no legal authority applying the doctrine to post-judgment interest for failure to collect a judgment. Citing Rule 4:3-2(a), the judge further found that venue was properly established in Atlantic County, where the cause of action arose.

Defendant appeals from the October 24, 2014 order. Before us, defendant does not contest the entry of the 1994 default judgment or the renewal of the judgment in 2013. Rather, defendant challenges the addition of post-judgment interest because of plaintiff's alleged failure to "mak[e] any effort whatsoever to collect" the judgment, which defendant further contends "den[ied] [him] the opportunity to settle the judgment during all that time." Defendant also renews his argument that, because he resides in Monmouth County, venue was improperly laid in Atlantic County.

Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We therefore affirm substantially for the reasons Judge Taylor expressed in her concise written opinion.

Affirmed.

1 The statute provides, in relevant part, that "[a] judgment in any court of record in this state may be revived by proper proceedings or an action at law may be commenced thereon within 20 years next after the date thereof, but not thereafter."

2 On July 10, 2013, Judge Isman entered an order clarifying the denial of defendant's motion to change venue.