Opinion ID: 2319975
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 2006 Summary Judgment Record

Text: We turn first to the December 1, 2006, summary judgment record which we view in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the non-moving party. R. 4:46-2(c); Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523, 666 A. 2d 146 (1995). [1] So viewed, the facts in the record are as follows: In 2002, defendants, John Torrence, Christopher Masso, and James Githens, decided to flip a property. Masso and Torrence would finance the deal, and Githens, through Tara Construction Services, Inc. (Tara Construction), would complete renovations. Thereafter, Masso, Torrence, and Githens' wife, who had no apparent role in the deal, formed MTG Properties, LLC (MTG) to renovate and sell a house, known as 121 Nokomis Trail, in Medford Lakes, New Jersey. Defendant, Jennifer Lynch, a real estate agent who is Githens' sister and Masso's cousin by marriage, brought the Nokomis Trail property to MTG's attention and represented MTG in its initial purchase for approximately $180,000. Lynch, who was associated with Prudential Fox and Roach Realtors (Prudential), also proposed renovations and marketing strategies to the group and acted as the listing agent. She received commissions for the purchase and sale of the property. In 2003, plaintiff, Debra Lombardi, recently divorced, was looking to relocate to the Medford, New Jersey, area, from New York City. She retained Brenda Richmond, of Weichert Realtors, to act as her real estate agent. When plaintiff first visited the Nokomis Trail property with Richmond, it was a wreckpractically gutted. Lynch was present when plaintiff first viewed the house, as was Githens, who identified himself as the contractor for the renovations. Githens explained to plaintiff the plans for the renovations, showed her drawings, and promised to include her in the selection of colors and appliances if she purchased the house. Plaintiff made an offer of $360,000 on the house, which defendants accepted. Githens and Lynch promised plaintiff the renovations would be complete before closing, which was scheduled for June 30, 2003. Paragraph 14 of the April 22, 2003, sales contract for the house, which was signed by Masso and Torrence individually, stated that the house and property shall be transferred in the same condition as they now appear. . . . This means that the property is being sold `AS IS' unless otherwise warranted hereinafter.  (Emphasis added). In addition, paragraph 15 of the contract provided: Seller not liable to buyer after settlement. All warranties, guarantees, representations of seller concerning the property . . . unless otherwise set forth in writing shall be absolutely void after settlement. . . . (Emphasis added). Paragraph 37F was handwritten into the contract: See construction addendum attached. That three-page addendum reflected at least seventy repairs and renovations to be completed by the sellers. Included were items such as siding, HVAC systems, floors, windows, steps, sheetrock, lighting, bathroom fixtures and vanities, and a new driveway, to name a few. The addendum, which was signed by Masso and Torrence, stated that the names of the sellers should be changed to MTG Properties. Plaintiff did not meet Masso until the closing on July 16, 2003. She has never met Torrence. At the closing, the house was nowhere near completion. In fact, Masso left the closing to determine its condition. When he returned, he agreed to place $10,000 in escrow, gave plaintiff a hug and said he would take care of everything and that he would never let a single mom with twins live in a house in that condition. Lynch assured plaintiff that Masso's word was good and that he would not take advantage of family. It was at that point that plaintiff first learned that Lynch and Masso were related. It is unclear when she found out that Lynch and Githens were siblings; what is clear is that she did not know of their relationship when she entered into the contract to buy the house. Plaintiff's real estate expert, Dominic Natale, expressed the opinion that, under N.J.A.C. 11:5-6.4, which requires disclosure of actual or potential conflicts of interest which the licensee may reasonably anticipate, Lynch should have disclosed to plaintiff her relationship to Masso and Githens. The escrow agreement, which was signed by Christopher Masso, listed MTG as the seller and Tara Construction as MTG's general contractor. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the escrow was to be held until August 1, 2003, by which time, the Seller, by and through its general contractor [Tara Construction], shall complete the punchlist items and review same with buyer. (Emphasis added). The page of outstanding punch-list items, agreed to between plaintiff and Githens, was attached. The escrow agreement further stated that [u]pon receipt of notice from Buyer and Seller, Escrow agent shall release the escrow amount to the Seller and this Agreement shall be cancelled and all rights and obligations of the parties under this Agreement shall automatically terminate. (Emphasis added). Thus, the agreement contemplated the completion of all the punch-list items by the seller, MTG, and required consent from both plaintiff and MTG for the release of the escrowed funds. Despite the escrow agreement, Richmond advised plaintiff not to close on the house. When plaintiff elected to go forward with the closing, Richmond asked her to sign a waiver, releasing herself and Weichert Realty from any liability. The waiver provided that Richmond advised plaintiff not [to] proceed with the closing on the . . . property at this date due to the amount of work that is still not completed at the time of settlement. Plaintiff signed the waiver. After the closing, the house remained unfinished. Githens worked on it sporadically but failed to pay the subcontractors and failed to purchase supplies. As a result, little work was completed. Lynch told plaintiff, she would take care of it, she would speak with him, speak with Chris [Masso] and assured [her] that this work would get done. When plaintiff visited the property with Masso and Lynch to show them its unfinished condition, Masso said he would give Githens one more chance to finish the project. Failing that, he would get another contractor. In early August 2003, Githens approached plaintiff and asked her to release the escrow funds. He claimed that Masso was not providing him the money necessary to complete the renovations and that he could not finish the job without the escrow funds. He told plaintiff that if she released the money he would be able to continue working on the house. Githens provided plaintiff a check for $10,000 as security to cover the escrow, and plaintiff signed the form to release the funds. When Githens still failed to complete the work, plaintiff attempted to negotiate his check, but it bounced. Plaintiff then contacted Masso who expressed surprise that the work had not been completed. At that time, Masso stated that all the monies had been dispersed. To the contrary, Githens contended that he made it clear to Masso that he had no more money and couldn't do any more work. Githens also said he did not receive the money plaintiff placed in escrow, which was released to MTG Properties. At some point, Masso told Githens not to contact him further, and it is unknown who received the escrow money. With the house still completely unfinished, plaintiff filed suit.