MARY JO LAMB VS. FLUTURA SAITI AND SAFET SAITI(L-0073-14, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5174-15T1

Mary Jo Lamb sued Flutura and Safet Saiti, alleging a $75,400 loan made in 2012; an IOU signed only by Flutura (dated Aug. 10, 2013) was attached to the complaint.
The IOU states Flutura owes $56,000 and makes no mention of Safet.
Plaintiff obtained a default final judgment against both defendants under R. 4:43-2 based on an unopposed certification of amount due.
Flutura’s 2015 motion to vacate was denied for lack of excusable neglect after personal service.
Safet moved in 2016 (two years after judgment) to vacate, asserting he never met plaintiff, never agreed to pay any sum, and had been divorced from Flutura since 2003; plaintiff did not rebut Safet’s claim that he never agreed to pay.
The trial court denied Safet’s R. 4:50 motion as untimely and for failure to show mistake/inadvertence/excusable neglect; the Appellate Division vacated that denial and remanded for reconsideration under R. 4:50-1 "upon such terms as are just."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default against Safet should be vacated given delay and lack of excusable neglect	Lamb argued Safet waited too long and defendants may be colluding; judgment should stand	Safet argued the motion under R.4:50-1(f) need only be within a "reasonable time," and the complaint lacks a legal basis to hold him liable	Court held the trial judge erred by denying relief without considering whether vacation on just terms was appropriate; remanded for reconsideration
Whether complaint/IOU supports liability against Safet	Implicitly contended both defendants promised to use best efforts to repay, supporting judgment against both	Safet argued he never agreed to pay and the IOU names only Flutura, so no basis for imposing liability on him	Court found the complaint appears insufficient to establish liability against Safet and default may have been improvidently entered; relief should be considered under R.4:50-1

Great Falls Bank v. Pardo, 263 N.J. Super. 388 (Ch. Div. 1993) (discusses requirement of consideration for enforcement of certain promises)
Douglas v. Harris, 35 N.J. 270 (1961) (standards on vacating judgments)
Heimbach v. Mueller, 229 N.J. Super. 17 (App. Div. 1988) (vacatur principles)
ATFH Real Prop., LLC v. Winberry Realty P'ship, 417 N.J. Super. 518 (App. Div. 2010) (consideration of just terms when vacating judgments)
US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449 (2012) (abuse of discretion in denial of relief)
Reg'l Constr. Corp. v. Ray, 364 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 2003) (awarding terms to protect prejudice when vacating defaults)