Orner v. Liu, 17 A.3d 266

Plaintiffs owned rental properties in Haddon Heights and entered June 2007 contracts to sell to Chengchih F. Liu, with time being of the essence and no mortgage contingency.
Closing dates were extended due to defendants’ currency export difficulties; the last agreed closing date was October 29, 2007, after which plaintiffs declared default when funds were not available.
Defendants later sought mortgage funding; plaintiffs permitted access to properties for appraisals, and disputes arose over deposit disposition.
On October 8, 2008, Judge Millenky discharged lis pendens and held defendants had no further right to the first deposit; later, the right to a second deposit remained undecided.
June 8, 2009, the court placed the settlement on the record with terms (release of funds, execution of new contracts by June 11, mortgage contingency, closing by Sept. 15, 2009, and a potential end to obligations if no close by that date); the court memorialized the settlement and dismissed claims with prejudice.
Defendants did not secure execution of new contracts and plaintiffs subsequently stated they were no longer interested; defendants moved to vacate the June 8, 2009 order about one year later, on June 7, 2010, under Rule 4:50-1, -2.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion to vacate was timely under Rule 4:50-2 as a reasonable-time standard.	Orner argues late filing was unreasonable under the reasonable-time requirement.	Liu contends filing within one year satisfies timeliness.	Unreasonable delay barred relief; motion denied.
Whether the settlement left unresolved terms that preserved defendants’ opportunity to purchase beyond Sept. 15, 2009.	Orner contends agreement set a deadline and left no further obligations after Sept. 15, 2009.	Liu contends ongoing negotiations could revive opportunities if consent obtained.	Settlement contemplated no further obligation after Sept. 15, 2009 absent additional stipulation; no revival by default.
Whether defendants abandoned their opportunity to seek relief after settlement ended.	Orner asserts timely pursuit of relief was required to protect the settlement.	Liu claims silence after deadline waived any right.	Defendants abandoned their opportunity by missing the deadline and failing to seek relief earlier.
Whether Rule 4:50-2’s reasonable-time requirement governs all Rule 4:50 motions, regardless of the one-year outer limit.	Orner relies on the one-year bar as dispositive.	Liu relies on the one-year window for timeliness.	Reasonableness governs; delays shorter than a year can be unreasonable; here delay was unreasonable.

Bascom Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 363 N.J. Super. 334 (App. Div. 2003) (motion under Rule 4:50-2 must be within a reasonable time)
Garza v. Paone, 44 N.J. Super. 553 (App. Div. 1957) (motions under Rule 4:50-1 must be within a reasonable time)
Hous. Auth. of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274 (1994) (standard of review for discretionary Rule 4:50 relief)
Jackson Constr. Co. v. Ocean Twp., 182 N.J. Super. 148 (App. Div. 1981) (timeliness and reasonableness of Rule 4:50 motions)
Reg'l Constr. Corp. v. Ray, 364 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 2003) (reasonableness and timeliness considerations under Rule 4:50)
McLawhorn v. John W. Daniel & Co., 924 F.2d 535 (4th Cir. 1991) (federal counterpart: reasonableness governs time limits for Rule 60(b) motions)
Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. Patel, 445 F.3d 899 (6th Cir. 2006) (federal rule on reasonable time surrounding relief motions)