NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0599-23
AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
LISA ROSSETTI, a/k/a DR. LISA A. ROSSETTI,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted December 3, 2024 – Decided January 13, 2025
Before Judges Perez Friscia and Bergman.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-1024-22.
Lisa Rossetti, appellant pro se.
Doyle and Hoefs, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Michael J. Hoefs, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant Lisa Rossetti appeals from an order granting summary
judgment to plaintiff American Express National Bank and entering judgment
in the amount of $53,398.10 against her for debt owed on two revolving credit
card accounts. We affirm since no genuine issues of material fact exist in the
record that establish defendant was not legally responsible for the debts and
therefore plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
I.
Defendant was issued two American Express credit cards with account
numbers ending in 3000 and 2006. Plaintiff's cardmember agreements provided
use of the cards constituted acceptance of the agreement. After defendant
applied and was approved for the credit accounts, plaintiff mailed her the credit
cards with a copy of the cardmember agreement. In addition, plaintiff sent
defendant revised and updated copies of the cardmember agreement
periodically. The agreement stated in pertinent part that "by accepting and using
the credit cards, defendant agreed to the terms of the cardmember agreement and
therefore agreed to pay for all items charged to the accounts." The agreement
also provided for plaintiff to pay for court fees in the event the accounts were
submitted for collection.
A-0599-23 2 Defendant utilized the credit cards to pay for goods, services and obtain
cash advances. Plaintiff sent defendant monthly statements that showed the
amounts due on each account and the interest rates charged. Defendant received
the statements and did not claim they were erroneous in any respect or otherwise
object to them.
Defendant defaulted on her payments due on the accounts, and plaintiff
subsequently suspended her charge privileges. In March 2022, having received
no payments from defendant, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant
alleging causes of action for breach of contract, account stated , and unjust
enrichment. The complaint alleged defendant owed $20,810.72 for the account
ending in 3000 and $31,977.38 for the account ending in 2006, plus costs of
$610.00 for a total amount due of $52,788.10, exclusive of court costs.
Defendant filed an answer in May 2022. In her answer, defendant checked the
box claiming she paid the balances.
A mandatory, non-binding arbitration was held in January 2023. On
February 7, plaintiff filed a trial de novo from the arbitration. In August,
approximately ten months after the discovery period ended, plaintiff moved for
summary judgment. In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted a statement of
material facts pursuant to Rule 4:46-2(a), an attorney certification, and affidavits
A-0599-23 3 from plaintiff's assistant custodian of records which attached all pertinent
documents providing proof of the debt owed.
Defendant filed a certification in opposition to the motion asserting she
had a settlement agreement with plaintiff and has "bank records to prove that
the alleged settlement payments were paid in full in the agreed to timeframe."
She also claimed that she requested the recordings or transcripts of her phone
conversations with plaintiff's employees confirming the settlement agreement
on multiple occasions, but she never received them. Defendant claimed she was
told after she made the final payment, she would receive written confirmation
and the "incorrect information that was given to the credit reporting agencies
would be removed." Further, she requested oral argument to present the bank
records and other proofs that she paid the three $12,000 payments which
satisfied the debt in full.
The trial court granted oral argument as requested by defendant.
Defendant stated oral argument was to "have the opportunity to present the bank
records and other proof that the settlement agreement was paid and satisfied the
debt in full." Defendant, however, failed to appear for argument. After hearing
from plaintiff and reviewing its written submission, the court granted plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment. The court relied upon "all the supporting
A-0599-23 4 documentation [and] the legal arguments submitted by . . . plaintiff in the brief."
Further, the court noted defendant filed a "disjointed and confusing answer
somehow . . . asserting that this matter was settled." The court noted defendant's
opposition did not satisfy the procedural requirements for opposing a summary
judgment motion, explaining there were no citations to the record nor a
counterstatement of material facts.
On September 11, 2023, the court entered an order granting plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment for $20,810.72 for the account ending in 3000
and $31,977.38 for the account ending in 2006, plus costs in the amount of
$610.00, for a total of $53,398.10.
II.
On appeal, defendant argues plaintiff failed to prove she owes the alleged
debt. Defendant reiterates her argument made to the trial court contending the
debt has been settled in full and she owes no amount on her accounts. Defendant
argues plaintiff's failure to provide discovery of the audio recordings and
transcripts of her phone conversations with plaintiff's agents which would prove
she paid the credit accounts leaves her no other way to prove she does not owe
the debt. Defendant argues she expressly demanded plaintiff produce the phone
audio recordings, which she claims demonstrated the debts were settled.
A-0599-23 5 Defendant specifically claims the phone audio recordings prove she settled the
debts with plaintiff's representative, who informed her that after making the final
payment, she would receive written confirmation she had done so. She claims
that she never received this communication after completing the final payment.
Defendant argues plaintiff never gave any reasons for failing to provide
responses to discovery, which would have revealed facts to support her defenses.
III.
Our review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo, applying
the same legal standard as the trial court, namely, the standard set forth in Rule
4:46-2(c). Conley v. Guerrero, 228 N.J. 339, 346 (2017). We consider whether
"the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder
to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party." Town
of Kearny v. Brandt, 214 N.J. 76, 91 (2013) (quoting Brill v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995)).
A party opposing summary judgment "bears the . . .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-0599-23
AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
LISA ROSSETTI, a/k/a DR. LISA A. ROSSETTI,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted December 3, 2024 – Decided January 13, 2025
Before Judges Perez Friscia and Bergman.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-1024-22.
Lisa Rossetti, appellant pro se.
Doyle and Hoefs, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Michael J. Hoefs, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant Lisa Rossetti appeals from an order granting summary
judgment to plaintiff American Express National Bank and entering judgment
in the amount of $53,398.10 against her for debt owed on two revolving credit
card accounts. We affirm since no genuine issues of material fact exist in the
record that establish defendant was not legally responsible for the debts and
therefore plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
I.
Defendant was issued two American Express credit cards with account
numbers ending in 3000 and 2006. Plaintiff's cardmember agreements provided
use of the cards constituted acceptance of the agreement. After defendant
applied and was approved for the credit accounts, plaintiff mailed her the credit
cards with a copy of the cardmember agreement. In addition, plaintiff sent
defendant revised and updated copies of the cardmember agreement
periodically. The agreement stated in pertinent part that "by accepting and using
the credit cards, defendant agreed to the terms of the cardmember agreement and
therefore agreed to pay for all items charged to the accounts." The agreement
also provided for plaintiff to pay for court fees in the event the accounts were
submitted for collection.
A-0599-23 2 Defendant utilized the credit cards to pay for goods, services and obtain
cash advances. Plaintiff sent defendant monthly statements that showed the
amounts due on each account and the interest rates charged. Defendant received
the statements and did not claim they were erroneous in any respect or otherwise
object to them.
Defendant defaulted on her payments due on the accounts, and plaintiff
subsequently suspended her charge privileges. In March 2022, having received
no payments from defendant, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant
alleging causes of action for breach of contract, account stated , and unjust
enrichment. The complaint alleged defendant owed $20,810.72 for the account
ending in 3000 and $31,977.38 for the account ending in 2006, plus costs of
$610.00 for a total amount due of $52,788.10, exclusive of court costs.
Defendant filed an answer in May 2022. In her answer, defendant checked the
box claiming she paid the balances.
A mandatory, non-binding arbitration was held in January 2023. On
February 7, plaintiff filed a trial de novo from the arbitration. In August,
approximately ten months after the discovery period ended, plaintiff moved for
summary judgment. In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted a statement of
material facts pursuant to Rule 4:46-2(a), an attorney certification, and affidavits
A-0599-23 3 from plaintiff's assistant custodian of records which attached all pertinent
documents providing proof of the debt owed.
Defendant filed a certification in opposition to the motion asserting she
had a settlement agreement with plaintiff and has "bank records to prove that
the alleged settlement payments were paid in full in the agreed to timeframe."
She also claimed that she requested the recordings or transcripts of her phone
conversations with plaintiff's employees confirming the settlement agreement
on multiple occasions, but she never received them. Defendant claimed she was
told after she made the final payment, she would receive written confirmation
and the "incorrect information that was given to the credit reporting agencies
would be removed." Further, she requested oral argument to present the bank
records and other proofs that she paid the three $12,000 payments which
satisfied the debt in full.
The trial court granted oral argument as requested by defendant.
Defendant stated oral argument was to "have the opportunity to present the bank
records and other proof that the settlement agreement was paid and satisfied the
debt in full." Defendant, however, failed to appear for argument. After hearing
from plaintiff and reviewing its written submission, the court granted plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment. The court relied upon "all the supporting
A-0599-23 4 documentation [and] the legal arguments submitted by . . . plaintiff in the brief."
Further, the court noted defendant filed a "disjointed and confusing answer
somehow . . . asserting that this matter was settled." The court noted defendant's
opposition did not satisfy the procedural requirements for opposing a summary
judgment motion, explaining there were no citations to the record nor a
counterstatement of material facts.
On September 11, 2023, the court entered an order granting plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment for $20,810.72 for the account ending in 3000
and $31,977.38 for the account ending in 2006, plus costs in the amount of
$610.00, for a total of $53,398.10.
II.
On appeal, defendant argues plaintiff failed to prove she owes the alleged
debt. Defendant reiterates her argument made to the trial court contending the
debt has been settled in full and she owes no amount on her accounts. Defendant
argues plaintiff's failure to provide discovery of the audio recordings and
transcripts of her phone conversations with plaintiff's agents which would prove
she paid the credit accounts leaves her no other way to prove she does not owe
the debt. Defendant argues she expressly demanded plaintiff produce the phone
audio recordings, which she claims demonstrated the debts were settled.
A-0599-23 5 Defendant specifically claims the phone audio recordings prove she settled the
debts with plaintiff's representative, who informed her that after making the final
payment, she would receive written confirmation she had done so. She claims
that she never received this communication after completing the final payment.
Defendant argues plaintiff never gave any reasons for failing to provide
responses to discovery, which would have revealed facts to support her defenses.
III.
Our review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo, applying
the same legal standard as the trial court, namely, the standard set forth in Rule
4:46-2(c). Conley v. Guerrero, 228 N.J. 339, 346 (2017). We consider whether
"the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder
to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party." Town
of Kearny v. Brandt, 214 N.J. 76, 91 (2013) (quoting Brill v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995)).
A party opposing summary judgment "bears the . . . burden of responding.
That burden is not optional[,] and it cannot be satisfied by the presentation of
incompetent or incomplete proofs." Polzo v. Cnty. of Essex, 196 N.J. 569, 586
(2008) (citations omitted). "Rule 4:46-2 dictates . . . a court should deny a
A-0599-23 6 summary judgment motion only where the party opposing the motion has come
forward with evidence . . . creat[ing] a 'genuine issue as to [a] material fact . . . '"
Brill, 142 N.J. at 529 (emphasis in original). "Competent opposition requires
'competent evidential material' beyond mere 'speculation' and 'fanciful
arguments.'" Cortez v. Gindhart, 435 N.J. Super. 589, 605 (App. Div. 2014)
(quoting Hoffman v. Asseenontv.Com, Inc., 404 N.J. Super. 415, 425-26 (App.
Div. 2009)). Further, Rule 4:46-2(b) unambiguously requires parties opposing
summary judgment to include a response to the movant's statement of material
facts admitting or disputing each of movant's assertions with precise record
references as support. Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 1.2
on R. 4:46-2 (2025).
It is well established that in order "[t]o collect on a revolving credit card
debt, [the plaintiff] is required to provide the transactions for which payment
has not been made, any payments that have been made, the annual percentage
and finance charge percentage rates[,] and the billing cycle information."
LVNV Funding, L.L.C. v. Colvell, 421 N.J. Super. 1, 7-8 (App. Div. 2011).
Moreover, the consumer's use of a credit card constitutes the formation of a
contract and signifies the consumer's acceptance of, and acquiescence to, the
A-0599-23 7 terms therein. See Novack v. Cities Serv. Oil Co., 149 N.J. Super. 542, 547-49
(Law Div. 1977), aff’d, 159 N.J. Super. 400 (App. Div. 1978).
After our de novo review, we conclude the record supports the court's
finding that defendant's opposition failed to raise any genuine factual issues
rebutting plaintiff's statement of material facts. In its statement of material facts,
plaintiff established the existence of a valid agreement evidencing existing
credit card accounts in defendant’s name by way of certifications and attached
exhibits. In addition to copies of billing statements, plaintiff attached a
cardmember agreement that sets forth the terms of the accounts including
interest rates and payment default terms. Plaintiff provided proofs that
defendant used the credit cards to make purchases. Plaintiff also produced
evidence that defendant failed to make payments when due under the terms of
the credit agreement and she did dispute any charges after receipt of the
statements. Further, plaintiff also submitted billing statements of the accounts
showing the amounts owed by defendant and interest rates charged.
Defendant's opposition relies on vague, unsupported statements
concerning her repeated requests to American Express and its attorneys to
provide audio recordings or transcripts verifying that a settlement was reached
based on her alleged payments. Importantly, while defendant argues she
A-0599-23 8 possessed records showing proof of her payments to plaintiff which satisfied the
debt owed, these records were not submitted in her opposition to plaintiff's
summary judgment motion nor are the records contained in the record on appeal.
We further determine there is no support in the record that discovery
should have been reopened and extended before summary judgment was
granted. The discovery period concluded on October 24, 2022. An arbitration
was held in January 2023. Defendant failed to make a motion to reopen or
extend discovery which was returnable prior to the discovery end date or
thereafter. See R. 4:24-1(c). Additionally, no proof exists in the record that
defendant requested copies of the audio recordings or transcripts of the phone
calls evidencing the "settlement agreement" in discovery. We note the only
mention of transcripts contained in the record was through defendant's email of
January 10, 2023, more than two months after discovery had closed.
To the extent we have not addressed any of defendant's remaining
arguments, we conclude those arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-0599-23 9