CALISTO BERTIN VS. MANHAR PATELÂ (L-2464-13, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0308-16T4

Plaintiffs (architect/engineer and lender) obtained an arbitration award and later sued Manhar Patel and related corporate entities, including Mantrib Corp., for unpaid sums.
Patel (vice-president, 50% owner) controlled Mantrib’s defense; his brother Tribhuvan (president, other 50%) claimed he was unaware of the transactions or litigation.
Mantrib initially filed an answer (through counsel retained by Patel) but the answer was stricken for discovery violations; plaintiffs’ subsequent demand for trial de novo was denied and the complaint was briefly dismissed for procedural reasons.
Plaintiffs moved to reinstate and confirm the arbitration award; the court reinstated the complaint and allowed defendants an opportunity to move to vacate suppression of the answer.
Plaintiffs obtained unopposed summary judgment and a money judgment against defendants (including Mantrib); Mantrib later sought relief under R. 4:50-1(f) arguing exceptional circumstances, defective service, and statutory protection for innocent shareholders. The trial court denied relief and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R. 4:50-1(f) relief is warranted	Judgment enforcement is proper; defendants had opportunity to defend	Exceptional circumstances exist; relief is equitable because innocent shareholder (Tribhuvan) was unaware	Denied — no exceptional circumstances; trial court did not abuse discretion
Whether defective service (registered agent) voids judgment	Service and defense history show adequate notice; an answer was filed	Service on registered agent failed; Tribhuvan lacked notice and should be protected	Denied — filing of an answer and later opportunities to reinstate foreclose relief based on service claim
Whether N.J.S.A. 14A:3-3(1) (rogue shareholder protection) entitles Mantrib to relief	Statute intended to protect innocent shareholder/corporation from rogue officer acts	Statute protects creditors’ rights and does not provide relief to the corporation here	Denied — statute does not diminish creditors’ rights and does not create exceptional circumstances for relief
Whether plaintiffs owed a duty of "due diligence" before contracting/suing	Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Patel’s authority and pursued remedies	Plaintiffs should have served/checked registered agent; better diligence would have protected Tribhuvan	Rejected — no authority supports required extra diligence; creditor rights prevail

Hous. Auth. of Town of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274 (1994) (Rule 4:50-1(f) relief available only in truly exceptional circumstances)
U.S. Bank Natl. Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449 (2012) (appellate review of discretionary trial-court decisions is deferential; reversal only for clear abuse)
Manning Eng'g, Inc. v. Hudson Cty. Park Comm'n, 74 N.J. 113 (1977) (R. 4:50-1(f) relief appropriate only to achieve a fair and just result)
Masone v. Levine, 382 N.J. Super. 181 (App. Div. 2005) (abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factors or bases decision on inappropriate ones)
Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561 (2002) (standards for identifying abuse of discretion)