OWENS FORENSIC SERVICES VS. MARY BAUR (DC-0679-16, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3551-15T2
OWEN FORENSIC SERVICES,1
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MARY CATHERINE BAUR,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
Submitted May 2, 2017 – Decided May 9, 2017
Before Judges Fasciale and Sapp-Peterson.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. DC-
0679-16.
Mary Catherine Baur, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Pro se defendant appeals from a March 14, 2016 small-claims
judgment entered in plaintiff's favor after a one-day bench trial.
We affirm.
1 Improperly pled as "Owens Forensic Services."
Plaintiff is in the business of providing video enhancing
forensic services. As part of that business, the parties had
entered into a contract in April 2015. Pursuant to that contract,
plaintiff provided defendant with various forensic video services
pertaining to a different lawsuit. The parties dispute whether
plaintiff provided those services timely and sufficiently, and
whether plaintiff provided additional forensic video services
pursuant to a July 2015 contract.
Plaintiff filed this book-account complaint against defendant
alleging breach of the purported July contract. Plaintiff
maintained that it had successfully performed its obligations
under the April contract, but then the parties entered into the
subsequent contract for additional services. Plaintiff sought
$1750 in damages for the services it performed under the July
contract.
Defendant filed a counterclaim alleging that plaintiff
breached the April contract. In her counterclaim, defendant argued
the parties did not enter into a July contract for additional
services. Defendant sought damages for breach of the April
contract.
After hearing the testimony from the parties and reviewing
various emails that they exchanged, the judge made detailed
findings of fact and rendered a lengthy oral opinion. The judge
2 A-3551-15T2
found that the parties entered into the July contract, plaintiff
performed additional video enhancement services as part of that
contract, and defendant failed to pay for those new services. In
reaching this finding, the judge rejected defendant's argument
that the services were part of the April contract. The judge then
entered the judgment for plaintiff and dismissed defendant's
counterclaim.
On appeal, defendant argues there are insufficient facts to
support the judge's findings and judgment. She maintains that
plaintiff breached the April contract, and that there is no
evidential basis to award plaintiff damages as to the July
contract. Defendant maintains, as she did before the judge, that
plaintiff acted in bad faith by failing to perform its services
in a timely fashion.
We conclude that defendant's arguments are without sufficient
merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E). We add the following brief remarks.
The standard of review of judgments or orders entered after
bench trials is well settled. The findings of the trial judge are
binding on appeal if they are supported by "adequate, substantial
and credible evidence." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins.
Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). We review a "trial court's
interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow
3 A-3551-15T2
from established facts" de novo. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp.
Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). Applying this
standard, we see no error.
On the allegations in defendant's counterclaim, the court
found that she did not meet her burden of proof. The court
explained that defendant offered no credible evidence showing that
plaintiff failed to perform the authentication or enhancement
services contemplated under the April contract. The judge
concluded that plaintiff performed the services timely and
properly. We have no reasons to disturb these findings.
On the allegations in plaintiff's complaint, the judge
concluded that the parties entered into the July contract for
additional services. The record reflects that after plaintiff
provided a bill for the additional service to recover audio,
defendant responded "Thank you!" In addition to making credibility
findings of fact, the judge found that defendant's response to the
subsequent bill further indicated a "meeting of the minds" between
the parties that plaintiff performed additional services as part
of the July contract.
We conclude therefore that there are sufficient facts in the
record to support the judge's findings of fact and conclusions of
law.
Affirmed.
4 A-3551-15T2