06-2-3444 Triffin v. United States Fire Ins. Co., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) Appellant, purchaser of the rights to defendant's alleged bad check debt, filed suit against respondent as the drawer of the check and against defendant as the payee. During the litigation, the trial court dismissed appellant's complaint with prejudice for failure to provide court-ordered discovery. On appeal, the court reversed dismissal finding appellant's violation of the subject discovery order should have been addressed by a sanction less severe than a dismissal of his complaint with prejudice. Following remand, respondent moved to sanction appellant for his continued failure to serve the subject discovery; the court directed the outstanding discovery be served and imposed a $300 restoration fee. Appellant provided the subject discovery, paid the restoration fee, and the matter was reinstated. Thereafter, the court granted summary judgment to respondent dismissing the complaint finding appellant failed to show he was either a holder of the check or a nonholder in possession who had the rights of a holder. On appeal, the court reversed in part concluding the trial court mistakenly exercised its discretion when it ordered appellant to pay a $300 restoration fee as appellant filed his motion to restore within the requisite thirty days of the dismissal and in accordance with Rule 6:4-6. However, the court affirmed summary judgment, finding appellant failed to show he was either a “holder” of the instrument or a “nonholder in possession of the [negotiable] instrument…[with] the rights of a holder.” N.J.S.A. 12A:3-301.

07-2-3428 Twp. of Greenwich v. Block 117, Lot 1 Assessed to Ralph Sabatini, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (8 pp.) Respondent obtained tax sale certificates against appellant's residential property for failure to pay property taxes resulting in a $20,000 balance owed. Appellant did not respond to the complaint and respondent obtained a default final judgement against him. Appellant moved to vacate the default judgment asserting he had not been served the notice of foreclosure. In response, respondent's counsels certified he sent the notice to foreclose by regular and certified mail to the last municipal tax address as well as posting copies of the notice and directly communicating with appellant. The court denied vacating the final default judgment concluding appellant had been properly served. On appeal, the court reversed holding service of the notice of foreclosure had not been accomplished pursuant to either Rule 4:4-4(a)(1) or (c). The court held that evidence of communication with the parties' counsels was not dispositive and noted that the parties' counsel did not discuss the foreclosure action at all. Further, there were questions regarding whether respondent personally served appellant with the notice of foreclosure in light of the competing certifications. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded denial of appellant's motion to vacate the default judgment.

07-2-3472 Louro v. Pedroso, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) Defendants appealed orders compelling principal of defendant law firm to attend a deposition and provide financial documents to plaintiffs in their efforts to collect an unpaid judgment. Plaintiffs sued defendants for unpaid rent, jury found for plaintiffs and trial judge ordered defendants to pay $21,000. Plaintiffs moved for principal to appear for a post-judgment deposition and to produce bank records and tax returns. The trial court ordered principal to attend the deposition and to pay plaintiffs' attorney fees. Defendants appealed that and subsequent orders arguing for reconsideration and a protective order. The court found that the trial court's notes refusing in camera review of allegedly protected documents were ambiguous and the matter had to be remanded for clarification. Defendants relied on the rules for conducting discovery depositions to argue counsel fees were erroneously awarded since plaintiffs did not make a request for deposition prior to filing their motion to compel. Plaintiffs were not required to file a request since their motion was based on defendants' failure to comply with an information subpoena and actions that appeared to be attempts to evade paying a judgment. However, principal should not have been included on the orders for costs because the jury verdict was not against him personally.