JOHN H. ECHEVERRY VS. RON BELLO (SC-000036-19, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3051-18T4
JOHN H. ECHEVERRY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RON BELLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Argued December 11, 2019 – Decided December 23, 2019
Before Judges Koblitz, Whipple and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Hudson County, Docket No. SC-000036-19.
Ron Bello, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Ron Bello appeals from a February 15, 2019 judgment for $442
entered against him after a bench trial in small claims court. Although plaintiff
John H. Echeverry did not respond to the appeal by filing a brief, he did appear
at oral argument, where it became clear that his knowledge of the English
language is limited. Perhaps because he was not afforded a Spanish interpreter
at trial, his trial testimony regarding the $450 "Jersey City job" was somewhat
confusing. Because the judgment appears inconsistent with the judge's findings,
and the findings inconsistent with the testimony, we remand for reconsideration.
Defendant hired plaintiff, a contractor, to do renovation work at two
locations pursuant to two oral contracts. The first contract, in Union City, was
for $4500, of which defendant paid $3000 leaving a balance due of $1500.
Plaintiff billed defendant an additional $2500 for purported "extra" work on this
job.
Plaintiff billed defendant $450 for the second smaller repair job, in Jersey
City, but defendant claimed plaintiff agreed to accept $200. Plaintiff sued
defendant in small claims court for the outstanding payments.
As to the Union City job, the judge determined that plaintiff was entitled
to the $3000 paid on a quantum merit theory but forfeited the balance due to his
failure to complete the work. The judge also found that the $2500 purportedly
billed for "extra" work was actually work performed to repair and correct
plaintiff's original work. As a result, plaintiff was not entitled to the additional
$2500.
A-3051-18T4
2
Regarding the Jersey City job, the judge found the contracted price was
$450. The judge awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff for $442, in spite of
testimony that defendant offered plaintiff $200 and plaintiff took that payment
"because [he] need[ed] the money." Defendant appeals, arguing the judge erred
because plaintiff admitted during trial that he accepted $200. The judge found
in her written decision that the contract price was $450. Plaintiff admitted at
trial that he was paid $200. Based on that information, the judgment would
reasonably be no more than $250 plus the $42 filing fee.
Plaintiff appeared for oral argument before us. Because he had not filed
a brief, he was not permitted to argue. R. 2:6-4(b). When we attempted to
explain why he could not argue, it became clear that he had some difficulty
understanding. He did understand when we spoke in Spanish. At trial, plaintiff
testified in English and seemed to understand and speak English fairly well, but
not without several misunderstandings.
The Language Access Plan states that "[t]he Judiciary shall provide equal
access to court proceedings, programs and services for all people, including
persons who are limited English proficient (LEP)." Administrative Directive
#01-17, "New Jersey Judiciary Language Access Plan" (Jan. 10, 2017). "Each
county shall provide interpreting services necessary for cases . . . in the Law
A-3051-18T4
3
Division and the Family Part of the Chancery Division." N.J.S.A. 2B:8-1.
Standard 1.2 of the Language Access Plan requires interpreters "for all court
proceedings, programs, services or court-ordered events that take place inside
the courthouse . . . so that an LEP person can fully participate in and have
meaningful access to the justice process." Administrative Directive #01-17,
"New Jersey Judiciary Language Access Plan" (Jan. 10, 2017); see Daoud v.
Mohammad, 402 N.J. Super. 57, 60–61 (App. Div. 2008).
We cannot determine with any certainty whether plaintiff was entitled to
an interpreter. He did not ask for one at trial. He did not participate in this
appeal and thus raised no issue concerning the lack of an interpreter at trial. We
therefore mention but do not resolve this issue.
The small claims court trial was somewhat rushed due in part to the judge's
calendar. Defendant identified himself as an attorney and said he had time
concerns. The judge said the parties would have to conclude the trial within a
half hour or go back to the presiding judge for reassignment. Both parties chose
to proceed on that basis. The judge was patient, questioning plaintiff to clarify
the facts, which he presented in a confusing manner.
A-3051-18T4
4
Two weeks after trial, the judge sent the parties a written decision and
judgment. With regard to the $442 judgment at issue on appeal, the decision
states:
As for the Jersey [C]ity job, the [c]ourt finds that there
was no agreement by Echevarry to accept $200. If there
had been, Bello would have paid him or at least offered
to pay that amount. Echeverry is entitled to be paid
$450[1] for the work done and described on the Jersey
City job.
At trial, both parties testified that plaintiff accepted $200 proffered by
defendant, although plaintiff did not agree that his acceptance constituted an
acknowledgement of full payment. Plaintiff testified he was seeking the
remaining $250 from the Jersey City job.
We defer to the trial court when a decision after a bench trial is based on
substantial credible evidence in the record. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors
Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). In this small claims case, the written
reasoning of the judge is contrary to the record. We therefore remand for
reconsideration, giving the judge an opportunity to review the transcript or
conduct a new trial, as the judge deems appropriate. Should plaintiff seek relief
1
Inexplicably, the judgment was not for $450, but for $442, including a $42
filing fee.
A-3051-18T4
5
regarding a need for a Spanish language interpreter, we do not express a view
as to whether such relief should be granted.
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-3051-18T4
6