NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1192-24
IN RE ESTATE OF ROSEANNE DYEVICH. _____________________
Submitted April 16, 2026 – Decided July 22, 2026
Before Judges Bishop-Thompson and Puglisi.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. P-000452-21.
Kevin Dyevich, self-represented appellant.
Lewis & Forrey LLC, attorneys for respondents Thomas Dyevich, James Dyevich, and Michael Dyevich (David T. Lewis, on the brief).
Kevin Dyevich,1 executor of the estate of Roseanne Dyevich, appeals from
a November 19, 2024 Probate Part order denying without prejudice his motion
to vacate a September 4, 2024 final arbitration judgment. We affirm.
1 Because the parties share a common surname, we refer to them by their first names. No disrespect is intended. We write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and
procedural history of this appeal, and limit our discussion to the facts necessary
to provide context to our decision. Nicholas Dyevich and his wife Roseanne
had four sons: Kevin, plaintiff in this matter; and James Dyevich, Thomas
Dyevich, and Michael Dyevich, defendants in this matter. Following Nicholas's
death in 2015 and Roseanne's death in 2019, the four sons, along with Ketevan
Aptsiauri and Jefferson Holdings, Inc., were engaged in litigation regarding the
estate, the disposition of the parents' real property, and Roseanne's incapacity.
The parties in the six pending matters agreed to binding arbitration to
address outstanding issues regarding: whether James acted properly in his
capacity as executor of Nicholas's estate and as guardian of Roseanne and, if
not, whether he should be removed; whether James improperly diverted funds;
whether Kevin should be appointed to replace James and provide a final
accounting; whether Kevin improperly diverted funds; and whether expenses
were incurred by the estate based on Kevin's improper actions. If any monies
were due by any party, the arbitrator was to determine how much was owed and
the form of judgment. The resulting final arbitration judgment, which was
supported by a comprehensive written opinion, addressed these issues.
A-1192-24 2 Plaintiff subsequently moved to vacate the arbitration award. He
contended defendants: breached the arbitration agreement by failing to pay the
accounting firm, which then refused to perform additional work; and
intentionally destroyed financial records, preventing plaintiff from obtaining
records more than seven years old. Plaintiff alleged these misdeeds led to an
inaccurate accounting analysis with a shortfall of almost $190,000. He further
contended defendants refused to pay the arbitrator's fee, so he paid the $15,000
outstanding balance and was therefore entitled to reimbursement.
Plaintiff also alleged that after Nicholas and Roseanne appointed him their
power of attorney, living will representative, and estate executor, James
fraudulently appointed himself power of attorney for them. James then
conspired with Thomas and Michael to move Nicholas and Roseanne into a
nursing home, sell their personal property, and steal their checkbook. Plaintiff
claimed James did not have the authority to make medical or health care
decisions for Roseanne, and therefore he owed the estate $345,000 in nursing
home fees.
During argument on the motion, the judge explained to plaintiff an
arbitration award may only be vacated for the six reasons set forth in N.J.S.A.
2A:23B-23(a), or it may be modified or corrected for the three reasons set forth
A-1192-24 3 in N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-24(a). Because plaintiff's application failed to cite the
statute or any case law, the judge asked him to clarify the relief he requested and
the grounds on which he sought relief. Plaintiff acknowledged there was no
miscalculation in the award, so N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-24(a) was inapplicable.
Instead, plaintiff sought to vacate the award based on defendants' conduct, as
alleged in his application. The judge denied the motion, finding it failed to
establish grounds to vacate the award under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-23(a).
We "review the trial court's decision on a motion to vacate an arbitration
award de novo." Yarborough v. State Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark, 455 N.J.
Super. 136, 139 (App. Div. 2018). "Private sector arbitration awards are . . .
subjected to an extraordinarily deferential standard of review." Rappaport v.
Pasternak, 260 N.J. 230, 250 (2025). They "may not be vacated or modified
simply because a court disagrees with the arbitrator's interpretation of the law
or view of the facts." Id. at 250-51. Rather, an award must be affirmed unless:
(1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means;
(2) the court finds evident partiality by an arbitrator; corruption by an arbitrator; or misconduct by an arbitrator prejudicing the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding;
(3) an arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing upon showing of sufficient cause for postponement, refused
A-1192-24 4 to consider evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise conducted the hearing contrary to section 15 of this act, so as to substantially prejudice the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding;
(4) an arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator's powers;
(5) there was no agreement to arbitrate, unless the person participated in the arbitration proceeding without raising the objection pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-15(c)] not later than the beginning of the arbitration hearing; or
(6) the arbitration was conducted without proper notice of the initiation of an arbitration as required in [N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-9] so as to substantially prejudice the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding.
[N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-23(a).]
On appeal, plaintiff urges us to vacate the arbitration award because it was
procured by fraud and undue means. In support of this argument, plaintiff
contends, for the first time, defendants committed fraud by "manually doctoring
photographs of . . . Roseanne . . . before and after being in [plaintiff]'s care with
the intent to coerce and influence the arbitrator." He also claims defendants
failed to provide the arbitrator with a medical evaluation regarding Roseanne's
preference to live with plaintiff, which would have negatively impacted their
credibility.
A-1192-24 5 In addition to this newly minted argument, plaintiff again points to
defendants' bad conduct, which was considered by the arbitrator and addressed
in the award. He argues James, as Roseanne's guardian, had a legal duty to
account for her assets but did not do so. He seeks appointment as executor of
Roseanne's estate, since James misappropriated and mishandled her money,
which led to James's unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff did not raise any of these issues before the motion judge and
instead argues them for the first time on appeal. We decline to consider an issue
not properly presented to the trial court unless the jurisdiction of the court is
implicated or the matter concerns an issue of great public importance. Nieder
v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J.
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-1192-24
IN RE ESTATE OF ROSEANNE DYEVICH. _____________________
Submitted April 16, 2026 – Decided July 22, 2026
Before Judges Bishop-Thompson and Puglisi.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. P-000452-21.
Kevin Dyevich, self-represented appellant.
Lewis & Forrey LLC, attorneys for respondents Thomas Dyevich, James Dyevich, and Michael Dyevich (David T. Lewis, on the brief).
Kevin Dyevich,1 executor of the estate of Roseanne Dyevich, appeals from
a November 19, 2024 Probate Part order denying without prejudice his motion
to vacate a September 4, 2024 final arbitration judgment. We affirm.
1 Because the parties share a common surname, we refer to them by their first names. No disrespect is intended. We write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and
procedural history of this appeal, and limit our discussion to the facts necessary
to provide context to our decision. Nicholas Dyevich and his wife Roseanne
had four sons: Kevin, plaintiff in this matter; and James Dyevich, Thomas
Dyevich, and Michael Dyevich, defendants in this matter. Following Nicholas's
death in 2015 and Roseanne's death in 2019, the four sons, along with Ketevan
Aptsiauri and Jefferson Holdings, Inc., were engaged in litigation regarding the
estate, the disposition of the parents' real property, and Roseanne's incapacity.
The parties in the six pending matters agreed to binding arbitration to
address outstanding issues regarding: whether James acted properly in his
capacity as executor of Nicholas's estate and as guardian of Roseanne and, if
not, whether he should be removed; whether James improperly diverted funds;
whether Kevin should be appointed to replace James and provide a final
accounting; whether Kevin improperly diverted funds; and whether expenses
were incurred by the estate based on Kevin's improper actions. If any monies
were due by any party, the arbitrator was to determine how much was owed and
the form of judgment. The resulting final arbitration judgment, which was
supported by a comprehensive written opinion, addressed these issues.
A-1192-24 2 Plaintiff subsequently moved to vacate the arbitration award. He
contended defendants: breached the arbitration agreement by failing to pay the
accounting firm, which then refused to perform additional work; and
intentionally destroyed financial records, preventing plaintiff from obtaining
records more than seven years old. Plaintiff alleged these misdeeds led to an
inaccurate accounting analysis with a shortfall of almost $190,000. He further
contended defendants refused to pay the arbitrator's fee, so he paid the $15,000
outstanding balance and was therefore entitled to reimbursement.
Plaintiff also alleged that after Nicholas and Roseanne appointed him their
power of attorney, living will representative, and estate executor, James
fraudulently appointed himself power of attorney for them. James then
conspired with Thomas and Michael to move Nicholas and Roseanne into a
nursing home, sell their personal property, and steal their checkbook. Plaintiff
claimed James did not have the authority to make medical or health care
decisions for Roseanne, and therefore he owed the estate $345,000 in nursing
home fees.
During argument on the motion, the judge explained to plaintiff an
arbitration award may only be vacated for the six reasons set forth in N.J.S.A.
2A:23B-23(a), or it may be modified or corrected for the three reasons set forth
A-1192-24 3 in N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-24(a). Because plaintiff's application failed to cite the
statute or any case law, the judge asked him to clarify the relief he requested and
the grounds on which he sought relief. Plaintiff acknowledged there was no
miscalculation in the award, so N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-24(a) was inapplicable.
Instead, plaintiff sought to vacate the award based on defendants' conduct, as
alleged in his application. The judge denied the motion, finding it failed to
establish grounds to vacate the award under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-23(a).
We "review the trial court's decision on a motion to vacate an arbitration
award de novo." Yarborough v. State Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark, 455 N.J.
Super. 136, 139 (App. Div. 2018). "Private sector arbitration awards are . . .
subjected to an extraordinarily deferential standard of review." Rappaport v.
Pasternak, 260 N.J. 230, 250 (2025). They "may not be vacated or modified
simply because a court disagrees with the arbitrator's interpretation of the law
or view of the facts." Id. at 250-51. Rather, an award must be affirmed unless:
(1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means;
(2) the court finds evident partiality by an arbitrator; corruption by an arbitrator; or misconduct by an arbitrator prejudicing the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding;
(3) an arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing upon showing of sufficient cause for postponement, refused
A-1192-24 4 to consider evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise conducted the hearing contrary to section 15 of this act, so as to substantially prejudice the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding;
(4) an arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator's powers;
(5) there was no agreement to arbitrate, unless the person participated in the arbitration proceeding without raising the objection pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-15(c)] not later than the beginning of the arbitration hearing; or
(6) the arbitration was conducted without proper notice of the initiation of an arbitration as required in [N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-9] so as to substantially prejudice the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding.
[N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-23(a).]
On appeal, plaintiff urges us to vacate the arbitration award because it was
procured by fraud and undue means. In support of this argument, plaintiff
contends, for the first time, defendants committed fraud by "manually doctoring
photographs of . . . Roseanne . . . before and after being in [plaintiff]'s care with
the intent to coerce and influence the arbitrator." He also claims defendants
failed to provide the arbitrator with a medical evaluation regarding Roseanne's
preference to live with plaintiff, which would have negatively impacted their
credibility.
A-1192-24 5 In addition to this newly minted argument, plaintiff again points to
defendants' bad conduct, which was considered by the arbitrator and addressed
in the award. He argues James, as Roseanne's guardian, had a legal duty to
account for her assets but did not do so. He seeks appointment as executor of
Roseanne's estate, since James misappropriated and mishandled her money,
which led to James's unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff did not raise any of these issues before the motion judge and
instead argues them for the first time on appeal. We decline to consider an issue
not properly presented to the trial court unless the jurisdiction of the court is
implicated or the matter concerns an issue of great public importance. Nieder
v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973). Neither circumstance is
present in this matter.
Even if we considered these arguments, they fail to establish grounds to
vacate the arbitrator's award under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-23(a). Plaintiff's motion
was based on his claims of fraud, corruption, and wrongdoing on the part of
defendants, which misapprehends the statute as authorizing vacatur based on a
party's actions. However, an arbitration award "may be vacated only for fraud,
corruption, or similar wrongdoing on the part of the arbitrators." Rappaport,
260 N.J. at 249 (quoting Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 129
A-1192-24 6 N.J. 479, 548 (1992) (Wilentz, C.J., concurring)). Plaintiff does not contend the
arbitrator engaged in fraud, corruption, or any wrongdoing, nor does the record
support any such allegation. Thus, consistent with the trial court's
determination, we discern no basis on which to vacate the arbitration award.
Affirmed.
A-1192-24 7