COMMUNITY FIRE AND WATER DAMAGE RESTORATION, LLCVS. HARRIET ROTHSCHILDHARRIET ROTHSCHILD VS. ROYAL DISASTER RECOVERY, INC.(L-4148-13, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2133-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 31, 2017Background
- CFW (Community Fire and Water Damage Restoration, LLC) and its sole member Chris Ojugo performed flood remediation at Rothschild's Plainfield home and invoiced $43,332.29; Rothschild had paid an $8,349 deposit. CFW sought $34,939.29 after crediting the deposit.
- The contract estimate had initially been higher ($56,137.21); CFW discounted charges and accepted insurer involvement; Rothschild signed the detailed estimate/contract form.
- Rothschild counterclaimed and third‑partied against Ojugo and his company, alleging Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) violations, Contractors' Registration Act and Home Improvement Practice regulation violations, breach of contract, covenant of good faith and promissory estoppel.
- The bench trial featured Ojugo as the sole witness. The trial court credited his testimony, dismissed Rothschild’s breach and promissory estoppel claims, and found Rothschild failed to prove an ascertainable loss from the alleged technical CFA violations.
- The court awarded CFW $34,938.29 (plus interest and costs) on alternative grounds: breach of contract and, importantly, quantum meruit/unjust enrichment for the reasonable value of services rendered; punitive damages and attorney’s fees were denied.
- On appeal Rothschild argued (1) CFA technical violations bar recovery or justify treble damages/attorney’s fees based on an ascertainable loss (attorney fees to vacate liens and/or the deposit); and (2) Ojugo was not personally entitled to judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rothschild) | Defendant's Argument (CFW/Ojugo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contractor’s technical CFA violations bar recovery of payment for services | Technical violations of registration/regulation should bar recovery and permit treble damages/fees | Quantum meruit is available despite technical CFA violations; CFW is entitled to reasonable value for services | Court affirmed quantum meruit recovery; technical violations did not preclude restitution for reasonable value |
| Whether Rothschild proved an ascertainable loss caused by the alleged CFA violations (attorney fees to vacate liens) | Attorney fees (≈$8,581) to vacate CFW’s liens were an ascertainable loss causally linked to CFA violations | Fees were not shown to be caused by any technical non‑compliance; liens were vacated for independent reasons | Court held Rothschild failed to establish causation or that fees were caused by CFA violations |
| Whether the $8,349 deposit is an ascertainable loss tied to CFA violations | The deposit/payment should be treated as an ascertainable loss supporting CFA damages | Deposit was part of agreed invoiced price; no causal link to any alleged technical violation shown | Court rejected claim that the deposit was an ascertainable loss caused by the alleged violations |
| Whether Ojugo may be held personally liable / recover personally | Rothschild argued Ojugo should not recover personally | Ojugo testified and was treated as a proper party; judgment entered in his favor | Court affirmed judgment in Ojugo’s favor; appellant did not preserve a timely challenge to personal‑capacity judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Marascio v. Campanella, 298 N.J. Super. 491 (App. Div. 1997) (quantum meruit may be available to a contractor despite statutory or regulatory noncompliance)
- Perez v. Professionally Green, LLC, 215 N.J. 388 (2013) (CFA claims based on technical violations require proof of an ascertainable loss causally linked to the violation to obtain treble damages and attorney’s fees)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standard for appellate review of trial court factual findings)
- D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168 (2013) (appellate deference to trial court findings unless manifestly unsupported)