Michael Wilmot v. New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2072-24

MICHAEL WILMOT,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENT ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY,

Respondent-Respondent. _________________________

Submitted May 5, 2026 – Decided May 15, 2026

Before Judges Rose and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from the New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority.

Michael Wilmot, self-represented appellant.

Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Vijayasri G. Aryama, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM Michael Wilmot appeals from a January 30, 2025 decision of the New

Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority (NJHESAA), rejecting

his incomplete application for the Home and Community Based Services

Provider Loan Redemption Program (Program). Because we conclude the

NJHESAA's decision "is supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record

as a whole," R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), we affirm.

We summarize the facts from the record before the NJHESAA. The

Program was federally funded and administered by the NJHESAA, which

accepted applications for one month only, between July 1, 2024 and July 31,

2024. Under the "one-time" Program, successful applicants were awarded up to

$50,000 in student loan redemption.

To qualify for the Program, applicants were required to meet certain

criteria and submit an online application, including a completed four-page

employer certification form. Instructions for completing this form were

expressly stated on the first page. Pertinent to this appeal, instruction number

four advised: "Before submission, ensure that the applicant and HR

representative both provide a hand[]written signature on the form." Instruction

number five advised: "Upload the completed and signed form with the online

application no later than July 31, 2024."

A-2072-24 2 On July 3, 2024, Wilmot applied to the Program by uploading an online

application and two pages of the four-page employer certification form. Wilmot

did not include section two of the form, titled: "Section 2: To Be Completed

By The Human Resources Representative."

Five months later, on December 13, 2024, the NJHESAA issued a written

decision deeming Wilmot "ineligible for the [Program] due to: Agency Provider

or Specific Site Eligibility Status."

By email dated December 26, 2024, Wilmot appealed. In his email,

Wilmot provided additional information, including his employer's license .

On January 17, 2025, the NJHESAA issued a written decision.

Acknowledging Wilmot met "Agency Provider or Specific Site Eligibility

Status," the agency nonetheless determined Wilmot "remain[ed] ineligible to

participate in the Program." The NJHESAA found the application was

incomplete in view of a "Missing or Incomplete Employer Certification."

By email dated January 27, 2025, Wilmot requested "a copy of the

employment verification form." Wilmot explained: "It seems in my original

copy it did not scan double sided, and I disposed of the original copy. If you

could please send me a new copy as it is not listed on the website. That would

be greatly appreciated, so that I could complete my second appeal."

A-2072-24 3 On January 30, 2025, the NJHESAA responded via email, enclosing the

four-page employer certification form. Later that same day, Wilmot emailed the

NJHESAA three pages of the form, containing the completed second section.

The form was signed and dated January 30, 2025.

Also on January 30, 2025, the NJHESAA issued its final written decision

upholding its initial decision. The NJHESAA found Wilmot "remain[ed]

ineligible to participate in the Program." The NJHESAA deemed Wilmot's

application incomplete in view of a "Missing Employer Certification." This

appeal followed.

Self-represented on appeal, Wilmot argues his "scanning error was the

sole barrier to approval" of his application as he "fully met the statutory and

regulatory criteria for the [Program's] grant." Wilmot contends the NJHESAA's

"late identification" of his error deprived him "any meaningful opportunity to

cure or respond to the minor scanning error."

In its responding brief, the NJHESAA argues: (1) Wilmot's appeal is moot

because the Program was a one-time federally funded program that only

accepted applications from July 1 to July 31, 2024, therefore "there are no

available Program funds to award Wilmot"; and (2) the agency's decision was

reasonable in view of the undisputed facts.

A-2072-24 4 Well-established principles guide our review. The scope of our review of

an administrative agency's final determination is strictly limited. Brady v. Bd.

of Rev., 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997); see also Allstars Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor

Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018). An agency's decision may not be

disturbed on appeal unless it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or

inconsistent with applicable law. Brady, 152 N.J. at 210. "We must affirm the

agency's factual findings if we are satisfied 'that the evidence and the inferences

to be drawn therefrom support' the agency's decision." Twp. of Fairfield v.

State, Dep't of Transp., 440 N.J. Super. 310, 318 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting

Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 588 (1988)).

We discern no basis on which to reverse the NJHESAA's decision.

Wilmot does not dispute the NJHESAA provided clear instructions to the public

on how to apply for the grant. The agency had no responsibility to review

Wilmot's application prior to the filing deadline, notify him of the deficiency,

or provide a cure period. We acknowledge Wilmot's argument. Indeed, it is

unfortunate he did not ensure the four-page employer certification form was

included with his application. That oversight was costly. Nonetheless, Wilmot

did not satisfy the criteria for receiving a grant, which included the filing of a

complete application by the filing deadline.

Affirmed.

A-2072-24 5