Unpublished Opinions for the Week of August 7, 2017

07-2-3888 Glouck v. Skvortsov, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (15 pp.) Respondent filed the underlying complaint against appellant and his defendant-mother alleging negligence, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Respondent alleged that upon visiting defendant’s business premises in the Dominican Republic to examine the inventory of her food-importing business, appellant became angry and attacked her with a machete. Appellant filed an answer denying the allegations, but subsequently dismissed counsel and failed to participate pro se in the scheduled trial. Appellant argued he was not ready for trial and challenged the court’s jurisdiction as well as respondent’s standing. The trial court noted on the record that appellants were residents of the county, availed themselves to the jurisdiction through the filing of the answer, and the matter was to proceed to trial. The trial judge again questioned appellant regarding his participation with the appellant responding he would “stand by my paperwork.” The trial judge issued a default judgment in favor of respondent and assessed damages. On appeal, appellant argued the default judgment should be vacated, violation of his right to a trial by jury, forum non conveniens, and failure to apply the laws of the Dominican Republic. The court affirmed holding appellant repeatedly and unequivocally refused to participate in or attend the trial after being adequately advised by the trial judge as to the consequences of his action. Appellant’s conduct clearly constituted a failure to defendant, failing within the grounds for a default under Rule 4:43-1. The court found appellant’s remaining arguments lacked merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the default judgment.

09-2-3918 DiRenzo v. Katchen, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (27 pp.) In an effort to stave off the dire financial circumstances faced by his defendant-nephew, appellant agreed to purchase defendant’s home with a mortgage arranged by respondent, a licensed mortgage broker, in favor of defendant-AFA. Defendant received far less money than anticipated resulting in the loan going into default and appellant eventually selling the property at a loss. Appellant filed the underlying action against respondent alleging, among other things, fraud, violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional negligence. Following a bench trail, the trial judge dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the court reversed in part concluding no reasonable person could find appellant’s reliance upon respondent’s misrepresentation or silent affirmance was reasonable, because appellant, who had engaged in previous real estate transactions, signed documents that reflected the need to bring money to the closing. Further, appellant had a reasonable expectation that the parties’ oral agreement would accurately be memorialized in writing. The court concluded appellant proved an affirmative misrepresentation by respondent-Katchen under Rule 4:37-2(b) before the closing and omitted material facts at the closing. It was further error to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation claim against respondent-Katchen based on the evidence that appellant relied upon such misrepresentations. However, the court affirmed dismissal for equitable fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy as well as dismissal of all claims against appellant-Brooks, except for negligence.