LYNN BRANCATO VS. ROBERT A. MARTIN AUSTIN TAPIA VS. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION(L-3322-14, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2323-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- In 1986 Lynn Brancato and Robert Martin (now deceased) purchased a condominium and recorded title; Brancato later permitted Martin to collect the rents.
- In April 2003 Martin executed and recorded a deed conveying the property to Austin and Danielle Tapia; the deed recited $60,000 consideration though the T apias paid only $7,500.
- The Tapias occupied and collected rent from the property beginning in 2003 and obtained a Countrywide mortgage in 2006.
- Brancato discovered the 2003 deed in August 2012 via tax records and then sued asserting ownership rights, rent claims, conversion, unjust enrichment, and seeking ejectment.
- After a four‑day bench trial the trial judge found the Tapias’ deed valid, held the parties tenants in common, applied laches to limit Brancato’s rent recovery to post‑2012 amounts, denied ejectment, imposed limited sanctions and counsel‑fee awards, and excluded certain late‑produced evidence; the Appellate Division affirms but remands to require recordation of the Tapias’ deed consistent with the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2003 deed (false stated consideration) | Deed invalid because stated consideration ($60,000) was false; recording statute requires true consideration | Deed valid despite recited consideration; statute cited applies to tax fee calculation, not deed validity | Deed valid; N.J.S.A. 46:15‑6(a) concerns tax/recording requirements, not deed invalidity |
| Ejectment / title rights | Brancato (original tenant in common) may eject Tapias and reclaim exclusive possession | Tapias claim title by recorded deed and thus have an undivided interest preventing ejectment | Tapias are tenants in common; ejectment denied because Tapias have legal title interest |
| Reinstatement of pleadings & laches defense | Judge erred reinstating suppressed pleadings and allowing laches; Brancato entitled to rent from 2003 | Suppression was too severe; lesser sanction appropriate; laches applies because Brancato delayed asserting rights | Reinstatement was within discretion; laches barred rent prior to 2012 — Brancato recovers half the rent minus expenses from 2012 onward |
| Attorney's fees and setoffs (sanctions, condo fees) | Brancato seeks attorney's fees under third‑party tort exception and for conversion; Tapias seek relief from a prior sanctions order and setoff for condo fees | Judge erred denying fees against Tapias and misapplied Rule 4:49‑2 timing; condo fee setoff should apply | Judge properly denied fees against Tapias (tortfeasor was Martin); prior sanctions for June 9 trial call upheld; judge misread Rule 4:49‑2 but error was harmless and condo fee setoff denied due to discovery sanction excluding late documents |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenfield v. Dusseault, 60 N.J. Super. 436 (App. Div.) (standard of deference to trial factfinder)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (trial court findings reviewed for support in record)
- Abtrax Pharms., Inc. v. Elkins‑Sinn, Inc., 139 N.J. 499 (discovery sanctions and reinstatement of pleadings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Zaccardi v. Becker, 88 N.J. 245 (dismissal and severe discovery sanctions should be imposed sparingly)
- Fox v. Millman, 210 N.J. 401 (definition and operation of laches as an equitable defense)
- Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169 (requirements for enforcing laches)
- Cox v. RKA Corp., 164 N.J. 487 (constructive notice from properly recorded instruments)