By no means am I attempting to make light of the consumer’s situation, but when judges note that the consumer “slept on her rights” it feels only natural to say, you snooze, you lose. A New Jersey Appeals Court has denied a consumer’s motion to vacate a default judgment, agreeing with the lower court that she waited too long and because proper procedure was followed.
The background: The collection action began after the plaintiff filed suit in 2021 to recover $676.92 that was tied to an unpaid retail credit card account. Service of the summons and complaint was completed through simultaneous certified and regular mail to the consumer’s correct address. According to court records, the regular mail was never returned, creating a presumption of valid service under New Jersey rules.
- The consumer did not answer the complaint, and a default judgment entered in March 2021.
- Over the next several years, the plaintiff sent multiple information subpoenas, a wage execution notice, and later sought levies on the consumer’s bank account. All were mailed to the same address. The consumer never responded.
- Only after levies were executed in 2024 did she move to vacate the judgment, asserting improper service and raising licensing arguments.
The ruling: The trial court rejected those arguments, and the Appeals Court affirmed, finding the motion was not filed within a “reasonable time” under New Jersey rules. The motion arrived more than three years after the judgment and after the plaintiff had successfully executed twice on the account.
- The panel highlighted that during this period the consumer received numerous mailed notices, including a wage execution served on both her and her employer. The trial court’s observation that she had “slept on her rights” was supported by “overwhelming evidence in the record.”
- The Appeals Court also agreed that service was valid. Because neither mailing was returned and the address was correct, service met the necessary requirements. The consumer’s reference to unexplained USPS website markings was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service, with the court noting that the online information was “not reliable” without supporting testimony.
- Finally, the court found no evidence of exceptional circumstances that would justify relief. As the trial judge pointed out, the consumer “never so much as denied borrowing the money.”
