NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 4428

___________ K E V I N W. Mc N U T T ; G L O R I A J . Mc N U T T , H - W, A p p e llan ts v. ESTAT E O F B ARRYD. McNU TT ; ANDREAH. KA SAR SKY , H -W, Indivi du a lly and Jointly

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 09- cv- 00002 ( H onor abl e Fr eda L. W ol fs on)

________________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y2, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , J O R D A N and V A N A SK I E , C i r cui tJ udges

Fi l ed: J ul y7, 2010

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C U R I A M. K evi n W . M cN ut tand G l or i a J . M cN ut t( “A ppel l ant s ”) , hus band and w i fe pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l t he or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tdeny i ng thei rm ot i on forT h e a tt o rne yd ec lares tha t w h il e b o th K ev in an d B arryw ere cli en ts of h is, there 1 w as nevera meet i ng athi s offi ce. B arr y ’ s w i fe a tt he t i m e, M ar t ha H ei s el , w ho appel l ant s cl ai m at t ended the 2 m eet i ng w i t h herfather , now dece as ed, al s o decl ar ed thats he di d notat t end anys uch m e e tin g a n d d e n ied a n yk n o w led g e o f a c o n tra c t b e tw e e n K e v in a n d B a rry . S h e d id sta te thatB arryhad s poken of a ppel l ant s ’ m oneytr oubl es and thatB arr ypur chas ed a pi ece of p ro p e rt yto a s s is t th e m . 2 s um m aryj udgm ent , gr ant i ng t he appe l l ees ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , and d i s mi s s i n g t h e c o mp l a i n t . F o rt h e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m. I. T h is c a se a rise s o u t o f

a n a lleg e d o ra l ag re e m e n t b e tw e e n K e v in M c N u tt an d h is br other , B arr yM cN ut t , r egar di ng t he ow ner s hi p and upkee p of thr ee l ot s of l and. I n t he 1 9 7 0 s, ap p ell an ts acq u ir ed a lan d p arc el th at ha d b ee n o w n ed b yK ev in an d B arry ’s p a re n ts, w h ich w a s d iv id e d in to th re e lo ts: L o t 2 5 , 2 5 .0 2 , an d 2 5 .0 3 . In 1 9 8 4 , ap p e llan ts s ol d L ot25. 03 t o E qui t yL ender s C orpor at i on t o avoi d for ecl os ur e. A ppel l ant s cl ai m t hatK evi n t ook r es pons i bi l i t yforB arr y ’ s fel onytheftof el ectr i cal s ervi ces on t he Lot s i n 1984. I n excha nge, theyal l ege, theyent er ed i nt o an or al “r eal es t at e contr act ” i n 1987 ( t he “1987 A gr eement ”) w i t h B arr yatan att orney ’ s offi ce , 1 w her ei n B arr yagr eed t o ( 1) obt ai n a mort gage on Lot25. 02; ( 2) di s bur s e funds fr om t he m or t gage t o appel l ant s ; ( 3) underw r i t e and pa yforal l m ai nt enanc e and r epai rneeds on the L o ts; an d (4) sa ti sfythe E q u ityL en d ers m o rt g ag e o n L o t 25 . 0 3 . T h ree m o n ths b ef o re 2 the al l eged a gr eement , B arr ypur chas ed Lot25. 02 fr om appel l ant s for$130, 000, pay i ng $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 in c a s h a n d o b ta in in g a p u rc h a s e m o n e ym o rt g a g e f o r t h e re m a in in g $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 .T he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatappel l ant s s ubm i t t ed s even s por adi cal l ydat ed 3 chec ks s i gned byG l or i a t o B arr yfor$1, 125. 00 eac h. B eca us e the courtfound for appel l ees on ot hergr ounds , i tdi d notr eac h t he ques t i on w hetherappel l ant s m ade a ny p a ym e n ts o n th e m o rt g a g e . K as ar s kydeni es t hatt he 2003 phone c al l t ook pl ace . 4 3 A l though B arr yw as t he pur chas er , appel l ant s al l ege thattheypai d and s at i s fi ed the m o rtg a g e in f

u ll i n A p ril 2 0 0 2 . L a ter in 1 9 8 7 , B a rryp u rc h a se d L o t 2 5 .0 3 f ro m E q u ity 3 L ender s for$29, 400, pay i ng $14, 400 i n cas h and obt ai ni ng a pur chas e moneym or t gage fort he r emai nder . T he mort gage i s s t i l l uns at i s fi ed, butno for ecl os ur e orot hercol l ect i on p ro c e e d in g s h a v e c o m m e n c e d . A p p e llan ts p ro d u c e d six tee n c h e c k s f ro m B a rryto K e v in betw een J une 2001 and N ovember2003, t ot al i ng $21, 571, the mem o l i nes of w hi ch i nd i cat e t he p aym ents w ere for equi pm ent, repai rs , and gift s. A ppel l ant s al l ege that , i n a 2003 thr ee- w ayphone ca l l betw een Bar r y , B arr y ’ s w i fe A ndr ea K as ar s ky , and K evi n, B arr yi ns t ruct ed K as ar s kyt o cont i nue fundi ng the 1987 A g re e m e n t. B a rryd ied sh o rtlyth e re a f ter ; h is w ill b e q u e a th e d L o ts 2 5 .0 2 a n d 2 5 .0 3 to 4 K evi n. A ppel l ant s pr oduced e i ghtchec ks fr om K as ar s kyt o K evi n betw een N ovember 2004 and M ay2007, t ot al i ng $26, 696. 99, and s i x l ett er s fr om K as ar s ky , s om e of w hi ch r efe r ence the che cks . T he mem o l i nes i ndi cat e thatthe che cks w er e fori ns ur ance , truck expens es , and C hr i s t m as pr es ent s . K as ar s kydecl ar ed thats he s entm oneyt o K evi n outof ki ndnes s and conc ern and thats he enc our aged K evi n t o fi nd w or k and ea r n i ncome by r ent i ng outt he Lot s . E ventual l y , K as ar s kydecl ar ed, s he r efus ed t o s end anym or e money t o appel l ant s aft erK evi n fi l ed a c ons t ruct i on l i en aga i ns theri n 2008.A ppel l ant s fi l ed s ui ti n t he Super i orC our tof N ew J er s ey , L aw D i vi s i on, 5 H u n terdo n C o u n ty . A p p ell ee s rem o v ed the c ase to f ed era l cou rt . T h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s j ur i s di ct i on w as pr operunder28 U . S. C . § 1332. 4 A p p e llan ts f

iled su it , rais in g c laim s f o r b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t an d se e k in g d a m a g e s in 5 the amountof $650, 000 pl us i nt er es t , pl us puni t i ve damages . T heyal s o s oughtan uns peci fi ed amountt o s at i s fya mort gage on one of the l ot s of l and i n ques t i on. I n a s tr o n g ly w o rd e d c o n c lu s io n , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d is m is s e d th e c o m p la in t w ith p re ju d ic e . A p p e lla n ts f

ile d a tim e ly ap p e a l. II. W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . In re v iew ing a D istri ct C o u rt ’s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent , w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew , and appl ythe s ame st andar d t hat th e D istric t C o u rt is re q u ire d to a p p ly . R e g e n ts o f M e rc e rsb u rg C o ll. v . R e p u b lic F ran k li n Ins. C o . , 4 5 8 F . 3 d 1 5 9 , 1 6 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). S u m m ary j udgm enti s pr operw hen, vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he nonm ovi ng par t yand dr aw i ng al l i nfer ence s i n t hatpart y ’ s favor , ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tand the movi ng part yi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . C el ot ex C orp. v. C atr ett , 477 U . S. 317, 322 ( 1986) ; Sal dana v. K m artC orp. , 260 F. 3d 228, 232 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ; Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . T he part yoppos i ng s um m aryj udgm ent“maynot re st u p o n th e m e re a lleg a tio n s o r d e n ials o f th e . . . p lea d in g ,” b u t “m u st s e t f o rth sp e c if

ic fac t s s how i ng t hatt her e i s a genui ne i s s ue fortr i al . ” Sal dana, 260 F. 3d at232 ( i nt ernal c ita tio n s o m itte d ).5

A fac tual di s put e i s genui ne i f ther e i s a s uffi ci entevi dent i arybas i s on w hi ch a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd fort he non- m ovi ng par t y , and i ti s m at er i al onl yi f i tm i ght aff ectt he out come of t he s ui t . A nder s on v. L i ber t yL obby , I nc. , 477 U . S. 242, 248 (19 8 6 ); K au ch er v . C o u n tyo f B u ck s, 4 5 5 F . 3 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A p lai n ti ff ’s p rof fe red ev iden ce m u st be su ff ici en t t o m ee t th e su b stan ti v e e v iden ti arystan d ard the ju ry w oul d have t o us e att r i al . A nder s on, 477 U . S. at255. I f appe l l ant s fai l ed t o “make a s how i ng s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t he exi s t ence of an e l ementes s ent i al ” t o t hei rcas e, and for w hi ch theybeart he bur den of pr oof attr i al , ther e ca n be no “ge nui ne i s s ue as t o any m at er i al fac t , ” and w e mustaff i r m the entr yof s um m aryj udgm ent . C el ot ex, 477 U . S. at 322- 23. III . A ft ert hor ough r evi ew of appe l l ant s ’ ar gum ent s on appea l , i n l i ghtof the r ecor d, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro p e rl yg ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t f o r a p p e lle e s . A p p e llan ts a lleg e d in th e f irst tw o c o u n ts th a t K a sa rsk yh a s th e re sp o n sib ili ty , b o th per s onal l yand as exec ut r i x of B arr y ’ s es t at e, t o cont i nue t o payfunds underthe 1987 A gr eementand thatherfai l ur e t o do s o w as i nt ent i onal . A ppel l ant s m aybr i ng an ac t i on f o r b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t ag a in st th e e sta te a n d K a sa rsk ya s its re p re se n tativ e if th e yc o u ld have br oughtt he s ame act i on agai ns tB arr ydur i ng hi s l i fet i m e. See Fl i ckerv. C heni t z, 150 A . 2d 688, 692 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 1959) . T o es t abl i s h t hata val i d contr act ex ist ed , a c lai m an t m u st sho w that an o ff er, acc ep tanc e, an d co n side rati o n ex ist ed , C o n t’ l6

B ank of Pa. v. B ar cl ayR i di ng A cade m y , I nc. , 459 A . 2d 1163, 1171- 72 ( N . J . 1983) , and thatthe part i es r eac hed a “ m eet i ng of the mi nds . ” D eV r i es v. E veni ng J our nal A s s ’ n, 87 A .2 d 3 1 7 , 3 1 8 (N .J . 1 9 5 2 ). W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat ap p ell an ts ha v e p rese n ted n o d o cu m en tary evidence o f t he 1 98 7 A greem ent’ s offer or accept ance. B ecause ap pell ants ’ cas e “depe nds upon or al t es t i m onyw i t h r es pectt o s t at ement s oract s by. . . [B arr y ] , . . . the ent i r e ca us e of a ct i on m us tbe pr oven bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence . ” C hance v. M cC an n , 9 6 6 A . 2 d 2 9 , 4 8 (N . J. S u p er. C t. A p p . D iv. 20 0 9 ) (ap p ly ing N ew Jerse y ’s “D ead M an’ s A ct , ” N . J . St at . A nn. § 2A : 81- 2) . A ppel l ant s ’ onl yevi dence thatthe 1987 m eet i ng t ook pl ace and thatan agr eementw as r eac hed i s thei row n s el f- s ervi ng t es t i m ony . T he otheral l eged a t t endi ng w i t nes s es deni ed eve rpart i ci pat i ng i n s uch a m eet i ng. L i kew i s e, t he che cks forr epai r s , equi pm ent , and gi ft s fr om B arr yand K as ar s ky ar e s por adi c and i ns uffi ci entt o pr ove the exi s t ence of a c ont r actundera cour s e of conductt heory . A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatappel l ant s have f ai l ed t o s etfor th fac t s s how i ng t hatt her e i s a genui ne i s s ue fortr i al . See Sal dana, 260 F. 3d at 2 3 2 . T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso p ro p e rlyf o u n d th a t ev e n if

th e 1 9 8 7 A g re e m e n t ex iste d , it w oul d be unenf

or cea bl e bec aus e i ti s i l l egal . See D uff v. T r ent on B ever age Co. , 73 A . 2d 5 7 8 , 5 8 4 (N .J . 1 9 5 0 ); N .J . S ta t. A n n . § 2 C :2 9 -4 (“ A p e rs o n c o m m its a c ri m e if h e . . . agr ees t o acc eptanypecuni arybenef i ti n cons i der at i on of r efr ai ni ng fr om r epor t i ng t o l awT he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o cons i der ed thatt o t he ext entappel l ant s r ai s ed a c l ai m for 6 unj us tenr i chment , t he cl ai m fai l s beca us e theycannots how thatB arr yunj us t l yr et ai ned anybenef

i tw i t houtpaym ent . See V R G C orp. v. G K N R eal t yC orp. , 641 A . 2d 519, 526 (N . J. 1 9 9 4 ). 7 en fo rce m en t auth o ri ti es th e c o m m issi o n . . . o f a n yo ff en se” ). A s the D istri ct C o u rt r eas oned, appel l ant s ’ al t ernat e pos i t i on i s thatB arr yagr eed t o hel p hi s br otheroutof ki ndnes s , w hi ch means he w as notcontr actual l yobl i gat ed t o do s o. 6 W e a lso a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t K a sa rsk yc a n n o t b e h e ld p e rso n a lly liab le f o r th e 1 9 8 7 A g re e m e n t b e c a u se sh e h a s re c e iv e d n o c o n sid e ra tio n . A p p e llan ts cl ai m t hatB arr yi ns t ruct ed K as ar s kyt o cont i nue maki ng paym ent s pur s uantt o t he 1987 A g re e m e n t af

ter h is d e a th . T h e yp o in t to th e e ig h t ch e c k s a n d six lette rs K a sa rsk yw ro te t o appel l ant s as pr oof of he ri nt entt o be bound. H ow ever , an agr eementt o m odi fyan exi s t i ng val i d contr actm us tbe s uppor t ed bycons i der at i on. W arner - L amber tPhar m . C o. v . S y lk , 4 7 1 F .2 d 1 1 3 7 , 1 1 4 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 2 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ). A p p e llan ts c laim K as ar s kyr ece i ved the bene fi tof the r epai r s theym ade t o t he Lot s . H ow ever , K as ar s ky h a s n e v e r o w n e d a n yo f th e L o ts. A c c o rd in g ly , w e a g re e th a t, ev e n p re su m in g a v a lid contr actexi s t ed, K as ar s kyneverr ece i ved anycons i der at i on thatw oul d bi nd hert o a m o d ifi ca ti o n , an d as su ch , the 1 9 8 7 A g ree m en t i s u n en fo rce ab le ag ains t her. I n C ount s T hr ee a nd Four , appel l ant s ar gue thatB arr yi s the ow nerof r ecor d of L ot25. 03; t hatK as ar s ky , bot h per s onal l yand as exec utr i x, i s obl i gat ed t o s at i s fythe u n p a id m o rt g a g e o n th a t lo t; a n d th a t h e r f a ilu re to d o s o is d e lib e ra te a n d in te n tio n a l.8

T h e D i s tr i c tC o u r tp r o p e r l y d e n i e d t h e s e c l a i m s . F o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , K a s a r s k y, in e ith e r c a p a c ity , is n o t b o u n d b yth e ter m s o f th e 1 9 8 7 A g re e m e n t. M o re o v e r, K e v in is th e o w n e r o f

L o t 2 5 .0 3 , p u rsu a n t to B a rry ’s b e q u e st. Fi nal l y , i n t hei rbr i ef t o t hi s C our t , appel l ant s ar gue thatthe es t at e s houl d have t aken a ct i on t o t r ans fert i t l e t o L ot s 25. 02 and 25. 03 t o K evi n, and poi ntt o a l et t erfr om K as ar s kyi n w hi ch s he s t at ed thats he “hope [d] ” t o have t i t l ed tr ans ferr ed t o hi m . T hey c laim th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in f a ili n g e x e rc ise its e q u itab le p o w e rs to c lea r titl e to th e lo ts, “ f

re e a n d c lea r o f

a n ym o rtg a g e s.” A p p e llee s c o rre c tlyn o te th a t ap p e llan ts d id notr ai s e thi s cl ai m bel ow . A s s uch, the cl ai m i s w ai ved. See, e. g. , M edi cal Pr ot ect i ve C o. v. W atki ns , 198 F. 3d 100, 105 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ; B arnes v. A m . T obacc o C o. , 161 F . 3 d 1 2 7 , 1 5 5 n . 3 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.