RISIKATV OLAJIDE VS. ONEMAIN FINANCIAL (DC-001626-15, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1171-15T3
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Jun 23, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Risikatv Olajide obtained an unsecured personal loan from OneMain Financial in July 2009 for $12,870.99 with APR 21.99% and a scheduled five-year payoff.
- Plaintiff later executed four Adjustment of Term Agreements (AOTs) lowering interest rates and extending the maturity date; loan statements and AOTs were attached to the record.
- Plaintiff defaulted in December 2013 after making roughly $11,286 in payments and then sued in April 2015 alleging breach of contract and fraud, claiming the amount financed had been misrepresented (reported as $19,086.39) and that payments had been applied primarily to interest.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under R. 4:6-2(e); the motion court considered AOTs and a payments chart (without converting to summary judgment) and dismissed breach and fraud claims without prejudice and the claim about reporting to Experian with prejudice as preempted by the FCRA.
- On appeal (pro se), Olajide argued she should have been given liberal treatment and leave to amend; the Appellate Division affirmed, finding the complaint failed to state breach or fraud and that the reporting claim was FCRA-preempted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Olajide: loan principal/term were changed without her signature or notice; payments not reducing principal | OneMain: loan and AOTs were signed; terms are clear; no factual averment of breach | Dismissed without prejudice — complaint fails to plead a cognizable breach |
| Common-law fraud | Olajide: defendant misrepresented amount financed and payment application causing damages | OneMain: loan documents unambiguous (APR, interest accrual, balances); plaintiff signed and had statements | Dismissed without prejudice — complaint lacks required fraud allegations (misrepresentation, scienter, reasonable reliance, damages) |
| Furnisher reporting to CRA | Olajide: OneMain reported amount financed as $19,086.39 to Experian | OneMain: furnishing conduct is governed/preempted by federal law (FCRA) | Dismissed with prejudice — claim preempted by FCRA |
| Leave to amend / pro se treatment | Olajide: as pro se, should receive liberal standard and chance to amend | OneMain: motion was proper; pleadings insufficient on their face | Appellate court: liberal reading applied but dismissal was proper; leave not required on these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornett v. Johnson & Johnson, 211 N.J. 362 (N.J. 2012) (pleadings are reviewed indulgently on dismissal)
- Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (N.J. 1989) (complaint must suggest a cause of action from its facts)
- Morton v. 4 Orchard Land Trust, 180 N.J. 118 (N.J. 2004) (formation of written contract requires meeting of the minds evidenced by written offer and acceptance)
- Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, 148 N.J. 582 (N.J. 1997) (elements of common-law fraud)
- Macpherson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 665 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2011) (FCRA preemption of state-law claims against furnishers of credit information)