The Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. Abc Caging Fulfillment
113 A.3d 1217
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2015Background
- Pitney Bowes Bank sued ABC Caging Fulfillment for breach of a purchase agreement; ABC defaulted after failing to respond to discovery; a default judgment was entered for Pitney Bowes in the amount of $69,315.59.
- A sheriff levied ABC's Shore Community Bank payroll account on September 6, 2013, seeking to satisfy the judgment.
- ABC argued the levied funds were exempt wages under N.J.S.A. 34:11-31 and -32 because they were used to pay employees.
- ABC's president certified the payroll account contained wages owed, and wages were paid with personal funds after the levy; wages continued to be paid during turnover proceedings.
- Pitney Bowes moved for turnover; the trial court denied, then granted reconsideration after reviewing the papers; it held that 34:11-31/32 did not apply to wages owed after the levy and treated ABC’s post-levy payments as a creditor situation.
- The court remanded to determine the exact amount of wages due on the date of the levy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion on reconsideration. | Pitney Bowes argues reconsideration was warranted due to new or previously overlooked material papers. | ABC contends the court had no new facts or law and should not reconsider. | Partially affirmed; reconsideration was an error in full relief. |
| Whether wages due at the levy are exempt under 34:11-31. | Pitney Bowes contends exempt wages must be paid first from the levied funds. | ABC argues wages due at levy were exempt. | Wages due at the levy are exempt; funds fixed at levy time were protected. |
| Whether wages accruing after the levy are exempt under 34:11-32. | Pitney Bowes argues wages accrued after levy are not exempt once funds are removed. | ABC contends post-levy wages should remain exempt under 34:11-32. | Post-levy wages are not exempt; not applicable to the funds removed at levy. |
| Should the amount of wages due at the levy be clarified on remand. | The exact wage amount due at levy was disputed. | N/A | Remand to calculate the precise amount due at levy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robison-Anton Textile Co. v. Embroidery Prods. Corp., 97 N.J. Super. 507 (App. Div. 1967) (primacy of wage claims over other creditors under N.J.S.A. 34:11-31 and -33)
- In re Holly Knitwear, Inc., 115 N.J. Super. 564 (App. Div. 1971) (wage priority in wage payment law)
- State v. Rosen, 40 N.J. Super. 363 (Law Div. 1956) (legislative intent to make wages paramount)
- T. & C. Leasing, Inc. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 421 N.J. Super. 221 (App. Div. 2011) (bank levy fixed in time; wages at levy time exempt to extent due)
- Union Cnty. Improvement Auth. v. Artaki, LLC, 392 N.J. Super. 141 (App. Div. 2007) (trial court discretion in reconsideration; standard of review)
- Cosme v. Borough of East Newark Twp. Comm., 304 N.J. Super. 191 (App. Div. 1997) (standard for deference to trial court findings of fact)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Twp. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (law and fact deference in appellate review)
- D’Atria v. D’Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392 (Ch. Div. 1990) (interpretation and application of statutory provisions)
- Flagg v. Essex Cnty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561 (1994) (abuse of discretion and standard of review)
- Borough of Glassboro v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 108, 197 N.J. 1 (2008) (statutory interpretation and plain language)