KAREN PFEIFFER VS. DOROTHY FUTRELL (C-000032-20, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3732-19
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 23, 2021Background
- Bank of America obtained a final judgment of foreclosure on Futrell's Plainfield home; a sheriff's sale was scheduled after the judgment was increased.
- Futrell entered a September 16, 2019 contract to sell the property to Pfeiffer/Stone Ridge for $120,000 and obtained temporary stays of the sale, but repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled closings.
- The property was sold at a sheriff's sale on January 8, 2020. Pfeiffer/Stone Ridge then loaned Futrell $89,104.71 to redeem the BOA mortgage and received a promissory note and mortgage; Futrell again failed to close or repay.
- Plaintiffs served acceleration/time‑of‑the‑essence notices, set new closing dates which Futrell missed, and ultimately filed a verified complaint seeking specific performance of the sale contract and damages under the loan documents.
- Futrell filed an unverified answer, counterclaim and third‑party complaint and opposed the summary proceedings without a personal certification; the motion judge deemed the opposition inadmissible and granted summary relief.
- The court ordered Futrell to convey the property per the contract, entered judgment on the loan, imposed monthly use‑and‑occupancy charges for holdover, and dismissed Futrell's counterclaims with prejudice; Futrell appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should relax procedural rules to accept Futrell's unverified pleadings under R.1:1-2 | Rules should be enforced; Futrell failed to verify and offered no admissible opposition | Futrell sought relaxation due to inability to sign electronically, stolen purse/keys, and COVID safety concerns | Court did not abuse discretion refusing to relax rules; Futrell bore heavy burden and failed to show facts warranting relief |
| Whether summary proceeding denied Futrell due process by depriving discovery and a trial on the merits | Plaintiffs argued summary relief appropriate under R.4:67 based on verified complaint and lack of admissible opposition | Futrell argued she needed discovery to prove predatory lending/unconscionability and CFA claims | Summary procedure was proper; Futrell had notice, failed to comply with verification/affidavit rules, and no genuine issue of material fact warranted trial |
| Whether the loan and contract were unconscionable or violative of the Consumer Fraud Act (predatory lending/equity‑stripping) | Plaintiffs maintained the loan was a bona fide bridge loan to redeem the foreclosure and enforceable | Futrell claimed the loan was predatory, unconscionable, and CFA‑violative because repayment was impossible in the short term | Court rejected unconscionability/CFA claims as meritless given the transactional facts and Futrell's conduct |
| Whether Futrell was judicially estopped from disavowing the contract and loan | Plaintiffs argued Futrell took inconsistent positions and used the loan to reclaim the property, justifying estoppel | Futrell sought rescission/reformation and denial of specific performance | Court found Futrell judicially estopped due to prior inconsistent positions, bad‑faith conduct, and use of the loan to redeem after sheriff's sale |
Key Cases Cited
- Romagnola v. Gillespie, Inc., 194 N.J. 596 (2008) (describing heavy burden and sparing application of Rule 1:1-2 relaxation)
- State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565 (1992) (relief under Rule 1:1-2 requires specific factual showings)
- H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 175 N.J. 309 (2003) (due process context for adjournment and adequacy of notice in urgent proceedings)
- Cox v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2 (1994) (Consumer Fraud Act standing and ascertainable loss discussion)
- Schweizer v. MacPhee, 130 N.J. Super. 123 (App. Div. 1974) (appellate review of trial court's discretionary relaxation of rules)
- MAG Entm't, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 2005) (requirement that court make findings of fact in summary real‑property proceedings)
- O'Connell v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co., 306 N.J. Super. 166 (App. Div. 1997) (standard of review and use of substantial‑credible‑evidence in summary actions)