JUDITH FERRARIS VS. JEFFREY SCOTT JONESÂ (DC-397-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4568-15T1

Ferraris sued Jones in Hudson County Special Civil Part alleging he owed ~$26,560 (she would accept $15,000); case tried to the bench and dismissed with prejudice.
Ferraris offered four promissory notes (one superseding March 31, 2008 note) and an Excel spreadsheet plus limited bank statements to prove payments.
Jones admitted signing two notes (totaling $12,000), denied signing two others, and testified payments and a $1,000 cruise ticket reduced his obligation; he lacked bank records for many payments.
Jones claimed signatures on two notes were forged (Ferraris had notarized some documents herself); Ferraris denied offsets.
The trial judge found Jones more credible, rejected the self-notarized notes and Excel spreadsheet as insufficient proof, and dismissed Ferraris’s complaint; a motion for new trial was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff met burden to prove debt and nonpayment	Ferraris argued her promissory notes and spreadsheet/bank entries established the debt and unpaid balance	Jones disputed two signatures, admitted only partial debt, asserted payments and cruise ticket offset, and lacked full records	Court credited judge's factual findings; plaintiff failed to meet burden—complaint dismissed
Admissibility/weight of self-notarized promissory notes	Ferraris relied on notes (some notarized by her) as proof of debt	Jones argued two notes were forged and notarizations were self-serving	Court found self-notarization and disputed signatures insufficient to establish authenticity or the additional $14,000 debt
Sufficiency of spreadsheet and limited bank statements to prove payments	Ferraris maintained Excel ledger and two bank deposits corroborated payments	Jones pointed to lack of corroborating records for most payments	Court held spreadsheets and two bank statements were inadequate to prove payment; judge permissibly discredited them
Evidentiary/procedural errors (new issues on appeal)	Ferraris argued trial court failed to mark/accept evidence, denied inspection, and made insufficient findings; also alleged hearsay/plain error	Jones did not brief appeal; at trial he testified to facts and signature issues	Appellate court declined to find abuse of discretion or manifest injustice; evidentiary rulings and credibility calls affirmed

Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. Of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (bench-trial findings are binding if supported by substantial credible evidence)
Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150 (2011) (trial judge has superior vantage for credibility determinations)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (legal questions reviewed de novo)
State v. Brown, 170 N.J. 138 (2000) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Marrero, 148 N.J. 469 (1997) (appellate court should not substitute judgment absent manifest injustice)