LIBERTY BELL BANK v. LUIS G. ROGERS (F-047214-13, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3487-18
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Mar 1, 2022Background
- Luis G. Rogers personally guaranteed debts of his company, Lease Group Resources, Inc. (LGR), and (with his spouse) executed and recorded a residential mortgage securing that guarantee in May 2013; the mortgage capped the secured amount at $3,713,704.52 and provided no accrual of interest.
- By May 2013 plaintiff Liberty Bell Bank claimed the indebtedness was $3,713,704.52 after discovering a check‑kiting/bank‑fraud scheme; Rogers defaulted on payments beginning September 2013.
- Liberty Bell filed a foreclosure complaint (Dec. 2013); Rogers’s answer was later deemed non‑contesting by the Office of Foreclosure and the trial court.
- Liberty Bell produced a Rule 4:64‑2 affidavit of amount due with supporting business records; it also consented to reduce its claimed amount to $2,965,740.83, and moved for final judgment.
- Rogers submitted unauthenticated/incomplete documents and argued payments to plaintiff were never reconciled; he also had been subject to a separate federal RICO/bank‑fraud judgment affirmed by the Third Circuit.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on Rogers’s counterclaims (as collateral‑estopped) and entered final judgment in the reduced amount; this appeal challenges those rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether final judgment/summary judgment in foreclosure was proper when defendant objected to amount due | Liberty Bell: its Rule 4:64‑2 affidavit and business records established the amount; no specific, admissible dispute was raised | Rogers: he submitted records showing payments/reconciliation issues and contested the claimed amount | Held: Judgment affirmed — Rogers failed to state specific, admissible objections or submit a proper certification; no genuine issue of material fact prevented summary judgment |
| Whether defendant's counterclaims (conversion, unjust enrichment, negligence, undue influence) could proceed | Liberty Bell: counterclaims are barred by collateral estoppel because federal litigation resolved the related financial disputes | Rogers: counterclaims asserted but did not produce evidence distinguishing these issues from the federal adjudication | Held: Summary judgment for plaintiff on counterclaims — collateral estoppel bars relitigation and Rogers offered no credible opposing evidence |
| Whether the trial court improperly relied on federal court findings | Liberty Bell: the federal findings were part of the record; plaintiff independently satisfied Rule 4:64 requirements | Rogers: trial judges improperly deferred to federal rulings and should have independently resolved factual disputes | Held: Court did not abdicate duties — plaintiff’s local proofs complied with Rule 4:64 and Rogers failed to rebut them with admissible evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Steinberg v. Sahara Sam's Oasis, LLC, 226 N.J. 344 (2016) (summary‑judgment standard to be reviewed de novo)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fisher, 408 N.J. Super. 289 (App. Div. 2009) (summary judgment appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists)
- Cortez v. Gindhart, 435 N.J. Super. 589 (App. Div. 2014) (nonmoving party may not rely on mere pleading allegations to defeat summary judgment)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (courts view evidential materials in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Brae Asset Fund, L.P. v. Newman, 327 N.J. Super. 129 (App. Div. 1999) (bare conclusions without supporting affidavits will not defeat summary judgment)
- Mony Life Ins. Co. v. Paramus Parkway Bldg., Ltd., 364 N.J. Super. 92 (App. Div. 2003) (no hearing warranted where defendant fails to offer conflicting proof)
- Liberty Bell Bank v. Rogers, [citation="726 Fed. App'x 147"] (3d Cir. 2018) (Third Circuit affirmed findings of bank fraud in parallel federal litigation)