LAUREN NEIDERT VS. BRIAN NEIDERTÂ (FM-03-1140-16, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1992-16T2

Lauren Neidert filed for divorce in May 2016; Brian Neidert was personally served but did not answer or appear at the November 2016 default hearing.
At the default hearing the Family Part adopted plaintiff's proposed equitable distribution terms, awarding plaintiff exclusive ownership of the marital home.
After entry of the default final judgment, defendant retained counsel and appealed directly to the Appellate Division instead of first moving in the trial court to vacate under Rule 4:50-1.
Defendant argued on appeal that the judgment was procedurally and substantively defective and that the trial court failed to provide adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 1:7-4(a).
Plaintiff contended the appeal was improper because defendant had not first sought relief in the trial court under Rule 4:50-1.
The Appellate Division agreed the appeal was premature and dismissed it without prejudice, directing the parties to proceed in the trial court and tolling the one-year limitation for certain Rule 4:50-1 grounds from the date of the appeal filing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper procedural route for challenging a default final judgment	Neidert: defendant must first seek relief under R. 4:50-1 in trial court before appealing	Neidert: appellate review should be allowed directly due to challenged deficiencies in the judgment	Held: Appeal was improper; defendant must first move under R. 4:50-1; appeal dismissed without prejudice
Whether default judgment can be disturbed absent excusable default and meritorious defense	Neidert: default judgment stands unless defendant shows excusable neglect and meritorious defense	Neidert: contends trial court erred and findings insufficient, justifying direct appeal	Held: Court reiterated default judgments are not lightly disturbed; defendant must present R. 4:50-1 grounds in trial court first
Effect of filing the improper appeal on Rule 4:50-2 time limit	Neidert: did not explicitly oppose tolling	Neidert: sought appellate preservation of rights; asked court to excuse bypassing trial motion	Held: One-year limitation in R. 4:50-2 for certain subsections is tolled from the filing of the improper appeal, so all R. 4:50-1 grounds remain available

Haber v. Haber, 253 N.J. Super. 413 (App. Div. 1992) (previous appellate decision addressing appeals from family-part defaults)
McDermott v. Patterson, 122 N.J.L. 81 (E. & A. 1939) (explaining impropriety of direct appeals from unchallenged trial-court judgments)
Walter v. Keuthe, 98 N.J.L. 823 (E. & A. 1923) (early authority on necessity of raising issues below before appellate review)
US Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449 (2012) (discussing standards for relief from default judgments)