Hayes v. Jeep
181 A.3d 279
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2018Background
- Hayes purchased a used car from Turnersville Chrysler Jeep, then alleges she was pressured to return it and buy a new, more expensive car; she later defaulted and the car was repossessed.
- Hayes sued for breach of contract, common-law fraud, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
- Turnersville moved to enforce an arbitration clause in the purchase agreement and to dismiss the complaint; the trial court heard oral argument and denied the motion on August 12, 2016.
- Turnersville did not file a direct appeal from the denial; 101 days later it filed a motion for reconsideration under Rule 4:49-2, which the trial court denied as untimely but nevertheless considered on the merits.
- The Appellate Division reviewed whether an order denying enforcement of an arbitration agreement is a final, appealable order and whether the trial court could entertain an untimely Rule 4:49-2 reconsideration motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order denying a motion to compel arbitration is final and appealable | Hayes argued the arbitration order was final as to arbitration (supporting finality) | Turnersville contended the order was not final and thus could be revisited by the trial court via reconsideration | Order denying arbitration is final and appealable; appeal must be taken timely or is lost |
| Whether a facially untimely Rule 4:49-2 motion for reconsideration may be considered when the underlying order was appealable | Hayes maintained that the time limits apply and untimely motions are improper | Turnersville argued the motion for reconsideration could be filed instead of a direct appeal (or that the order was interlocutory) | Trial court erred in entertaining an untimely Rule 4:49-2 motion; defendant’s remedy was a timely direct appeal |
| Whether the trial court could relax timing rules under Rule 1:1-2 or extend Rule 4:49-2 time limits | Hayes relied on the mandatory nature of Rule 1:3-4(c) and finality under Rule 2:2-3(a)(3) to bar enlargement | Turnersville argued equitable considerations and interlocutory nature justified extension | Court held Rule 1:3-4(c) prevents enlarging Rule 4:49-2; timing cannot be enlarged and trial court lacked authority to do so |
| Whether the Appellate Division should affirm the trial court’s denial of reconsideration | Hayes argued for affirmance based on timing and finality rules | Turnersville sought reversal, urging reconsideration was proper | Appellate Division affirmed denial of reconsideration but on grounds that the motion was untimely and defendant should have appealed directly |
Key Cases Cited
- Akhtar v. JDN Properties at Florham Park, 109 A.3d 228 (App. Div. 2015) (discusses reconsideration of interlocutory orders)
- Johnson v. Cyklop Strapping Corp., 531 A.2d 1078 (N.J. Super. 1987) (treatment of interlocutory reconsideration)
- GMAC v. Pitella, 17 A.3d 177 (N.J. 2011) (orders granting or denying arbitration are final and appealable)
- N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. K.M., 133 A.3d 643 (App. Div. 2016) (procedural discussion cited by the court)