SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-2576-22 

CUSTOM RENOVATIONS, LLC, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v.

HARVEY G, LLC, and 

CLAUDE and RYANNE1 GIROUX, 

 Defendants-Appellants. 

______________________________

Submitted September 20, 2023 – Decided October 2, 2023 

Before Judges Currier and Firko. 

On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior 

Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, 

Docket No. L-2691-22.

Rogers Counsel, attorneys for appellants (Lance Rogers 

and Brian T. Newman, on the briefs). 

1

 The initial complaint refers to this defendant as "Ryanne" Giroux. The record 

also refers to this defendant as "Ryan" Giroux. We refer to this defendant as 

"Ryanne" in our 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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.
2 A-2576-22

Siciliano & Associates, LLC, attorneys for respondent 

(Salvatore J. Siciliano and Jennifer McPeak, on the

brief). 

PER CURIAM 

 By way of leave granted, defendants Claude and Ryanne Giroux and 

Harvey G, LLC (collectively defendants)2 appeal from a March 17, 2023 Law 

Division order denying their motions to discharge a lis pendens and to impose 

sanctions against plaintiff Custom Renovations, LLC for the frivolous filing of 

the lis pendens. For the reasons that follow and based on the applicable 

principles of law, we conclude the trial court misapprehended the law in denying 

defendants' motion to discharge the lis pendens, and we reverse. We also 

remand for the trial court to consider anew defendants' motion for sanctions. 

I.

 Plaintiff operates a construction and home renovation company. Plaintiff 

and the Giroux defendants entered a Contract for Building, Construction, or 

Repair (Contract) to perform home improvements on a Haddonfield home they 

resided in and owned by defendant Harvey G, LLC for a total contract amount 

2

 The record sometimes refers to Claude and Ryanne Giroux as defendants and 

in other instances includes Harvey G, LLC, as a defendant as well. The merits 

brief is filed on behalf of "defendants" but does not specify them. Therefore, in 

our opinion, we construe defendants to include Claude and Ryanne Giroux and 

Harvey G, LLC. 
3 A-2576-22

of $200,000. The Giroux defendants requested additional renovation work and 

upgrades at a cost of $15,755.77. The Giroux defendants only paid $150,000 to 

plaintiff, claiming they were entitled to credits for unfinished work and that they 

were "promised additional credits." 

 On October 12, 2022, plaintiff filed a two-count complaint against 

defendants alleging breach of contract (count one), and breach of contract and 

fair dealing (count two). Plaintiff alleged it was owed approximately $56,000

from the Giroux defendants, after a credit and reduction in price by $9,750. That 

same day, plaintiff also filed a notice of lis pendens in the Camden County 

Clerk's Office against Harvey G, LLC, as the owner of the Haddonfield property, 

where the work was performed. The lis pendens was recorded on October 21, 

2022. 

 The notice of lis pendens stated: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE of the commencement and 

pendency of a suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division-Special Civil Part,3 Camden County, 

captioned above in connection with all that tract or 

parcel of land commonly known as 377 Kings Highway 

West, Borough of Haddonfield, County of Camden, 

State of New Jersey, legally described as follows: 

SEE Exhibit "A" 

3

 The complaint was filed in the Law Division, not the Special Civil Part. 
4 A-2576-22

The general object of said suit includes an action for 

breach of contract for professional services provided 

and seeks payment of outstanding legal fees owed to

Plaintiff. 

The Complaint containing the claim in the aboveentitled action was filed in the Office of the Clerk of 

the Superior Court of New Jersey on May 20, 2021. 

 On November 10, 2022, counsel for defendants sent plaintiff's counsel a 

letter stating the lis pendens was improperly filed because plaintiff's claim 

against the Giroux defendants was for money damages only and a demand was 

made that the lis pendens be discharged. Defense counsel's letter notified 

plaintiff the filing of the lis pendens was done with an "improper purpose"—to 

"harass and/or cause a needless increase in litigation"—in violation of N.J.S.A. 
5 A-2576-22

2A:15-594 and Rule 1:4-8(b)5, the frivolous litigation rule. Plaintiff did not

respond to the letter and did not discharge the lis pendens. 

 Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e), for 

failure to state a cause of action for breach of contract due to plaintiff's failure 

to comply with the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to 

-227. Plaintiff cross-moved seeking leave to file and serve a first amended 

complaint adding a third count against Harvey G, LLC for unjust enrichment. 

Following oral argument on December 16, 2022, the trial court dismissed counts 

one and two of the complaint as against Harvey G, LLC but denied the motion 

to dismiss the complaint as to the Giroux defendants. The trial court also granted 

4

 N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1(a)(1) provides: 

A party who prevails in a civil action, either as plaintiff 

or defendant, against any other party may be awarded 

all reasonable litigation costs and reasonable attorney 

fees, if the judge finds at any time during the 

proceedings or upon judgment that a complaint, 

counterclaim, cross-claim, or defense of the 

nonprevailing person was frivolous. 

5

 Rule 1:4-8(b) provides for "Motions for Sanctions." In pertinent part, the Rule 

states, "[A]n application for sanctions under this rule shall be by motion . . ." 

and "will be made within a reasonable time . . . if the offending paper is not 

withdrawn within [twenty-eight] days of service of the written demand." 
6 A-2576-22

plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to file and serve a first amended complaint to 

add a third count against Harvey G, LLC for unjust enrichment (count three). 

 On January 23, 2023, the Giroux defendants filed an answer and 

counterclaim denying the allegations in the complaint and stating the 

Haddonfield property was sold subsequent to the lawsuit being filed. They 

alleged they overpaid plaintiff and were entitled to a refund because plaintiff 

"failed to perform several material portions of the job." The Giroux defendants 

alleged they had to "hire other contractors and professionals to complete the 

job." 

In their counterclaim, the Giroux defendants averred plaintiff was a home 

improvement contractor as defined by N.J.A.C. § 13:45A-17.2, and it did not 

comply with provisions of the regulations pertaining to home improvement 

contractors by failing to sign the Contract, failing to memorialize amendments 

to the Contract in writing, failing to provide a completion date for the work, a 

statement of guarantee or warranty for the labor and materials used and other 

enumerated compliance failures under N.J.A.C. 13:45A-16.2. The Giroux 

defendants also alleged plaintiff violated the CFA and attempted to stop the sale 

of the property by filing a frivolous lis pendens. They alleged they owe no 
7 A-2576-22

additional monies to plaintiff, and the Contract should be deemed invalid under 

the CFA. 

 Harvey G, LLC sold the subject property to a third-party buyer. The title 

company escrowed $100,000 at the time of closing due to the lis pendens. On 

February 1, 2023, the Giroux defendants filed a motion to discharge the lis 

pendens and for sanctions, which is the subject of the matter under review. 

On March 17, 2023, the trial court heard oral argument on the motions and 

rendered an oral decision that day. The trial court found "when you have a claim 

to renovations in the property, it's perfectly appropriate to have a . . . notice of 

lis pendens . . . and to have a construction lien." The trial court noted the 

construction lien was "not file[d] properly" but "[i]t doesn't matter" because 

plaintiff is "owed money . . . based on the renovations on this property." In 

conclusion, the trial court stated, "[t]here is a lien against the property" and that 

"a lis pendens is absolutely appropriate under the circumstances." The trial court 

denied both motions. We granted defendants' motion for leave to appeal.

 Before us, the following arguments are presented:

(1) plaintiff's lis pendens is legally flawed and the trial 

court erred in denying the motion to discharge the lis 

pendens; and 
8 A-2576-22

(2) defendants' motion for sanctions should be 

remanded to the trial court because the lis pendens was 

frivolous. 

 Having reviewed these contentions in light of the record and applicable 

legal principles, we conclude the trial court misapprehended the law in denying 

defendants' motion to discharge the lis pendens warranting reversal. We also 

remand for the trial court to consider anew whether sanctions should be awarded 

to defendants under Rule 1:4-8 and N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1. 

II. 

 A lis pendens provides notice to a prospective purchaser of a currently 

pending claim that could impact the real property. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. v. 

Winnebago of N.J., Inc., 149 N.J. Super. 81, 85-86 (App. Div. 1977) (citations 

omitted). Defendants argue that the filing of the lis pendens was procedurally 

incorrect as plaintiff's first amended complaint sought only monetary damages, 

and no claim or right to the property's title. Defendants further contend plaintiff 

does not have a right in the subject property, and its right to file a mechanics or 

construction lien expired months ago. And, the Haddonfield property is now 

owned by an unrelated third-party. N.J.S.A. 2A:15-6 provides: 

In every action, instituted in any court of this State 

having civil jurisdiction or in the United States District 

Court for the District of New Jersey, the object of which 

is to enforce a lien upon real estate or to affect the title 
9 A-2576-22

to real estate or a lien or encumbrance thereon, plaintiff 

or his [or her] attorney shall, after the filing of the 

complaint, file in the office of the county clerk or 

register of deeds and mortgages, as the case may be, of 

the county in which the affected real estate is situate, a 

written notice of the pendency of the action, which shall 

set forth the title and the general object thereof, with a 

description of the affected real estate. 

No notice of lis pendens shall be filed under this article 

in an action to recover a judgment for money or 

damages only. 

(Emphasis added.) 

 It is undisputed the action solely seeks a judgment for monetary damages 

against the Giroux defendants individually and Harvey G, LLC. If plaintiff 

prevails, it can obtain a monetary judgment against the Giroux defendants for 

what they owe under the Contract and against Harvey G, LLC, if unjust 

enrichment is proven. The matter here does not in any way seek "to enforce a 

lien upon real estate or to affect the title to real estate or a lien or encumbrance 

thereon." N.J.S.A. 2A:15-6. Moreover, plaintiff does not claim an ownership 

interest in the property's title, and the statute plainly disallows the filing of a lis 

pendens on this basis. 

 We are satisfied that plaintiff is only seeking a monetary judgment against 

defendants—in each of the three counts of its first amended complaint—and that 

the trial court misapprehended the law in not discharging the lis pendens. 
10 A-2576-22

N.J.S.A. 2A:15-6 unequivocally states no notice of lis pendens shall be filed to 

recover a judgment for money or damages only. Therefore, we reverse the order 

denying defendants' motion to discharge the lis pendens and remand for the trial 

court to enter an order discharging the lis pendens. 

III. 

 In light of our decision, we also reverse the trial court's order denying 

sanctions and remand for the court to consider this aspect of defendants' motion 

anew. N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1(a)(1) provides a prevailing party in a civil action, 

as plaintiff or defendant, may be awarded all reasonable litigation costs and 

reasonable attorney fees if the judge finds a pleading or defense of the 

nonprevailing person was frivolous. Subsection (b)(1) of the statute requires the 

judge to consider, in determining whether a pleading or defense was frivolous, 

if bad faith is shown, or the action was "solely for the purpose of harassment 

delay or malicious injury." 

Subsection (b)(2) requires the judge to analyze whether the nonprevailing 

party "knew, or should have known," that the pleading or defense "was without 

any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not be supported by a good faith 

argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law." We offer 

no opinion as to the determination of the trial court on this issue. 
11 A-2576-22

 To the extent we have not specifically addressed any remaining arguments 

raised by defendants, we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant 

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

 Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with our 

opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.