A New Jersey Appeals Court has affirmed a lower court’s decision in favor of a debt collector after the consumer appealed rulings denying his attempt to vacate a bank levy and default judgment as well as a motion for reconsideration.
The background: The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant back in 2018, seeking to recover an outstanding balance of $871.10, plus costs.
- The summons and complaint were mailed to the defendant’s last known address by both regular and certified mail. The documents sent by regular mail were not returned as undelivered and the certified mail was marked as “unclaimed” by the post office. The defendant failed to respond to the complaint, leading to a default judgment.
- Over the next few years, the plaintiff obtained several writs of execution against the defendant’s bank funds, wages, and personal property. It wasn’t until March 2023, nearly five years after the initial complaint, that the defendant moved to vacate the bank levy and default judgment, claiming he had not received proper service of process.
The ruling: The Appeals Court upheld the lower court’s decision to deny the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, citing several key factors.
- Despite the defendant’s claim of improper service, the court determined that service was effective under New Jersey state law. The regular mail was not returned, and the certified mail was marked “unclaimed,” which satisfied the legal requirements for service.
- The court also found the defendant’s motion to be “untimely,” as he offered no reasonable explanation for the nearly four-and-a-half-year delay in responding to the legal proceedings. The appeals court concluded that the defendant did not present any valid reasons that would justify the significant delay or demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to overturn the judgment.
