NJ Family Issues

RSS | Comments RSS

Relief from judgment where the judgment or order has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment or order upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or order should have prospective application

Comments Off No Comments»
June 18, 2013 at 4:13 pm


Law Lessons from STEVEN M. ELLIOTT, individually and d/b/a ELLIOT RACING STABLE AND STANLEY FORD VS. JOHN GREEN, Individually and d/b/a PINNACLE RACING STABLE, App. Div., A-4967-11T1, May 17, 2013:

Rule 4:50-1(e) provides for relief from judgment where “the judgment or order has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment or order upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or order should have prospective application[.]” The rule permits relief “in changed circumstances that call the fairness of the judgment into question.” DEG, LLC v. Twp. of Fairfield, 198 N.J. 242, 265-66 (2009). In that case, the Court held that the defendant was not entitled to relief from the consent judgment under Rule 4:50-1(e) because it “made no effort whatsoever to comply with the consent judgment, let alone a good faith effort to do so.” Id. at 269.

“A motion under Rule 4:50-1 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which should be guided by equitable principles in determining whether relief should be granted or denied[,]” and “[t]he decision granting or denying an application . . . will be left undisturbed unless it represents a clear abuse of discretion.” Hous. Auth. of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 283 (1994). The Appellate Division’s review of a trial judge’s exercise of discretion is thus quite limited.

“[J]udicial discretion” is the option which a judge may exercise between the doing and the not doing of a thing which cannot be demanded as an absolute legal right, guided by the spirit, principles and analogies of the law, and founded upon the reason and conscience of the judge, to a just result in the light of the particular circumstances of the case.

[Smith v. Smith, 17 N.J. Super. 128, 132 (App. Div. 1951), certif. denied, 9 N.J. 178 (1952).]

The exercise of “[j]udicial discretion is not unbounded and it is not the personal predilection of the particular judge.” State v. Madan, 366 N.J. Super. 98, 109 (App. Div. 2004). To constitute an abuse of discretion, however, the decision must have been “made without a rational explanation” or must have “‘inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis.’” United States v. Scurry, 193 N.J. 492, 504 (2008) (quoting Flagg v. Essex Cnty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002)).



NOTE from Paul G. Kostro, Esq.: If you are interested in Mediation; or have issues relating to Divorce, Domestic Violence, Child Support or Other Legal Matters, please call me to schedule an appointment — I can be reached by telephone at (908)486-2200; or by Email.


[HOME]

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to clients in Fanwood 07023; Garwood 07027; Kenilworth 07033; Mountainside 07092; New Providence 07974; Roselle Park 07204; Roselle 07203; Elizabeth 07201; Linden 07036; Plainfield 07060; Rahway 07065; Summit 07901; Westfield 07090; Berkeley Heights 07922; Clark 07066; Cranford 07016; Hillside 07205; Scotch Plains 07076; Springfield 07081; Union 07083; Winfield; Carteret 07008; Dunellen 08812; East Brunswick 08816; Edison 08817; Jamesburg 08831; Metuchen 08840; New Brunswick 08901; Old Bridge 08857; Perth Amboy 08861; Sayreville 08871; South Amboy 08878; South River 08877; Avenel 07001; Colonia 07067; Iselin 08830; Woodbridge 07095; Somerset 08873; Somerville 08876 and Watchung 07069, New Jersey.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.