A New Jersey appeals court has affirmed a lower court’s ruling denying a consumer’s motion to vacate a default judgment because she waited too long and took other legal steps before seeking to vacate the judgment.
The background: The case stems from a credit card account originally opened in 1999. After a series of assignments, the plaintiff became the owner of the debt. In 2013, it filed a complaint to collect $5,139.04.
- A default judgment was entered and wage garnishment was pursued.
- The consumer challenged the garnishment in 2016 but did not attempt to vacate the judgment until 2024.
- In the interim, a number of other lawsuits against the plaintiff alleging it operated without a license in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (CFLA) were consolidated into one case and subsequently settled. The defendant did not opt out or challenge the settlement and received compensation under its terms.
- In March 2024, the judgment against the defendant was partially satisfied. A month later, the defendant moved to have the judgment vacated on the grounds she didn’t know the plaintiff had to be licensed under the CFLA and that she could reopen the lawsuit.
- A trial court judge denied the motion to vacate the judgment based on the doctrine of laches and the untimeliness of the motion. The judge called the delay “inexcusable.”
The ruling: The Appellate Division agreed, citing the consumer’s “strategic decisions” over the years to pursue affirmative claims rather than challenge the default judgment.
- The court emphasized that she failed to assert any meritorious defense, exceptional circumstances, or evidence that enforcement of the judgment would be unjust.
