Case Name: SHERWOOD BAXT AND SAIDA BAXT, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. GERALD A. LILOIA AND ANTHONY J. SILVESTER, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1995-09-27
Citations: 284 N.J. Super. 221
Docket Number: 
Parties: SHERWOOD BAXT AND SAIDA BAXT, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. GERALD A. LILOIA AND ANTHONY J. SILVESTER, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 284
Pages: 221–227

Head Matter:
664 A.2d 948
SHERWOOD BAXT AND SAIDA BAXT, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. GERALD A. LILOIA AND ANTHONY J. SILVESTER, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued January 23, 1995
Decided March 13, 1995
Remanded by Supreme Court July 5, 1995
Resubmitted July 17, 1995
Decided September 27, 1995.
Before Judges DREIER, WEFING and BRAITHWAITE.
Helen Davis Chaitman argued the cause for appellants (Ross & Hardies, attorneys; Ms. Chaitman, Sean M. Sullivan and Kelly J. Bugle, on the brief).
Michael R. Cole argued the cause for respondents (Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretbi, attorneys; Jeffrey J. Miller and Harold L. Kojman, on the brief).

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
WEFING, J.A.D.
This matter has been remanded to us pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court of July 5, 1995 "to consider the claim of petitioners that the settlement of the underlying litigation expressly excluded plaintiffs' claims against the attorney defendants." This court did not address that issue in its opinion since it concluded that plaintiffs had failed to state a cause of action in any event. We do not restate the facts of this matter, for they are contained within our original opinion.
Whether plaintiffs sought to exclude claims against the attorney defendants from the settlement of the companion foreclosure action (The Summit Trust Company v. The Grove Mercantile Center, et al, A-1102-93) was not material to this court's decision that plaintiffs did not have a cause of action against these attorney defendants based solely on an allegation that the conduct of these defendants violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. Our colleague has concluded that the apparent attempt by the plaintiffs to preserve a claim against these defendants from the settlement of the underlying mortgage foreclosure action is sufficient to permit this ease to go forward. In our view, however, the language plaintiffs inserted into that settlement agreement is immaterial; a party cannot preserve a claim that does not exist. We adhere to the views expressed in the opinion of March 13, 1995.