Lombardi v. Masso, 25 A.3d 1080

In 2003 MTG Properties, LLC bought and planned to renovate a Medford Lakes home at 121 Nokomis Trail for resale; Githens/Tara Construction did the renovations under MTG's arrangement.
Lynch, MTG's real estate agent, brought the Nokomis Trail property to MTG's attention and acted as listing agent, earning commissions; her relationship to Masso and Githens was later disclosed as a potential conflict of interest.
Lombardi offered $360,000 and closed on July 16, 2003; the house was far from complete; a handwritten punch-list addendum listed at least seventy repairs MTG promised to complete.
Escrow of $10,000 was created to ensure completion; the escrow was to be released only upon completion and mutual consent, with MTG and buyer to approve any release; Lombardi later released escrow funds after Githens provided a security check that bounced.
Plaintiff filed suit January 13, 2004 for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, CFA violations, negligence, and conspiracy; defendants moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted in part in December 2006, later reversed after a proof hearing.
The trial court conducted a post-summary judgment proof hearing in 2007, concluded there were genuine issues of material fact, and vacated the summary judgment; Appellate Division reinstated the original summary judgment order without addressing merits; this Court granted certification to review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May court revisit interlocutory summary judgment after a proof hearing?	Judge acted within inherent power to reconsider for justice after new evidence.	Law of the case and interlocutory rule precluded reconsideration; abuse of process.	Trial court could revisit and vacate; inherent power to revise interlocutory orders in interests of justice.
Does law of the case bar reconsideration of an interlocutory order here?	Law of the case allows reconsideration where justice requires; interlocutory ruling not binding on merits.	Law of the case precludes revisiting earlier interlocutory determinations.	Law of the case did not bar reconsideration; proceedings allowed merits review.
Did real estate agents fall within the Consumer Fraud Act under the original record?	CFA applies to real estate professionals; misrepresentations and conflicts of interest occurred.	CFA did not apply to realtors at the time of the initial ruling; as-is contract environment limits liability.	CFA applied to defendants; misrepresentations and fiduciary issues present were triable.
Are there genuine issues of material fact on agency, breach, fraud, CFA, and conspiracy warranting trial?	Evidence shows coordinated plan to induce purchase with incomplete renovations and misrepresentations.	Record shows no agency or breach; contract terms as-is with limited liability post-settlement.	Record shows genuine issues of material fact requiring trial.

Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (standard for determining when material facts preclude summary judgment)
Johnson v. Cyklop Strapping Corp., 220 N.J. Super. 250 (App.Div.1987) (inherent power to revise interlocutory orders before final judgment)
Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of Am. v. United States, 320 U.S. 1 (1943) (federal support for trial court revisiting interlocutory decisions)
Zeiger v. Wilf, 333 N.J. Super. 258 (App.Div.2000) (interlocutory evidence issues; limits on using post-record evidence on appeal)
City Check Cashing, Inc. v. Jul-Ame Constr. Co., 326 N.J. Super. 505 (App.Div.1999) (interlocutory review and flexibility of appellate procedure; later cited as City Check Cashing v. Mfrs. Hanover Trust Co., 166 N.J. 49 (2001))
In re Estate of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275 (2008) (law of the case concept and relitigation principles in estate matters)
Ford v. Weisman, 188 N.J. Super. 614 (App.Div.1983) (interlocutory orders and justice-based revision authority)