Anthony D’Agostino and Denise D’Agostino v. Ricardo Maldonado

216 N.J. 168 (2013) · Supreme Court of New Jersey · October 3, 2013 · No. A-82/83-11; 068940

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a mortgage foreclosure rescue transaction involving the transfer of plaintiffs’ home constituted an unconscionable commercial practice under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Court concluded that the transfer of the plaintiffs’ home equity was an ascertainable loss even though the trial court later restored title to them. It reinstated the trial court’s damages award and rejected the defendant’s equitable-estoppel defense.

Holdings

  1. A foreclosure-rescue transaction combining the conveyance of real property, real-estate-related services, property management, and a buy-back option may constitute a sale of merchandise and a commercial practice governed by the Consumer Fraud Act.
  2. Maldonado's use of one-sided and misleading documents to obtain a $480,000 property for ten dollars constituted an unconscionable commercial practice under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.
  3. The transfer of the plaintiffs' equity in their home constituted an ascertainable loss notwithstanding the trial court's later equitable remedy restoring title.
  4. The trial court acted within its discretion in calculating damages by considering the plaintiffs' lost equity, Maldonado's improvements, and the value of the equity restored through the equitable remedy.
  5. Equitable estoppel did not bar the plaintiffs' Consumer Fraud Act claim.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Maldonado's foreclosure-rescue transaction constituted a commercial practice involving the sale or advertisement of merchandise governed by the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
  2. Whether the transaction was an unconscionable commercial practice under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.
  3. Whether the plaintiffs suffered an ascertainable loss despite the trial court's equitable remedy restoring title to the property.
  4. Whether the trial court properly calculated and awarded treble damages together with equitable relief.
  5. Whether equitable estoppel barred the plaintiffs' Consumer Fraud Act claim.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (27)

  • Seidman v. Clifton Savings Bank, S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150, 169 (2011)(followed)
  • Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Co. of America, 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974)(followed)
  • Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Township Committee of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)(followed)
  • Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 553-57 (2009)(followed)
  • D’Annunzio v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 192 N.J. 110, 119-20 (2007)(followed)
  • Daidone v. Buterick Bulkheading, 191 N.J. 557, 565 (2007)(followed)
  • DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005)(followed)
  • Gonzalez v. Wilshire Credit Corp., 207 N.J. 557, 576, 582-85 (2011)(followed)
  • Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, 148 N.J. 582, 604 (1997)(followed)
  • Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2, 16, 19, 22-24 (1994)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 27.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…