MAURICE DEUTSCH,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Defendants/Third-Party
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ABRAHAM CENSOR,
Third-Party Defendant.
________________________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Esther Binet (Esther) appeal from various trial court orders and
a judgment entered on February 2, 2009, that (1) awarded
$2000 per month for the use and occupancy of the Property
which Censor would purchase the Property in his name for the
1
The third-party claim against Censor was dismissed on June 6,
2008, and he is not a party to this appeal.
2 A-3227-08T2
$1000 and $2000, and Censor obtained two mortgage loans from
pendens the same day. The next day, January 12, 2006, Censor
2
At trial, Binet could not recall the exact amounts involved,
and the record does not contain the mortgage documents.
3 A-3227-08T2
negotiations was Benzion Frankel (Frankel), a New York attorney.
The Settlement Agreement stated that Binet would pay Deutsch the
4 A-3227-08T2
agent, Frankel, was authorized to return the deed to Censor and
2006.
Binet and his wife, Esther, alleging that Binet had breached the
judgment against Binet for the balance due under the Settlement
filed on March 28, 2007, the Binets claimed that they were "no
5 A-3227-08T2
failing to deposit the executed deed and assignment of mortgage
from Censor to Deutsch were both "null and void"; (2) imposition
3
The Binets also filed a second notice of lis pendens on March
30, 2009.
6 A-3227-08T2
mortgage should be assigned to." Additionally, Frankel
assigned to." The Binets opposed the motion, claiming that "the
management order.
that time, the court noted the parties had resorted to self-help
7 A-3227-08T2
Nevertheless, it ordered the parties to proceed with depositions
many phone calls" with Birenbaum, but ultimately "was told that
Mr. Binet and Mr. Birenbaum did not know where [the documents]
since receiving the loan, Binet had avoided him "for years on
8 A-3227-08T2
exchange for actual payment. Following negotiations, Frankel
be." Deutsch also indicated that after payments from Binet had
on June 4, 2008. Although they did not state whether they had
had paid all maintenance and utility costs since October 2004.
refinance the mortgage" and that Censor responded with "a demand
9 A-3227-08T2
On June 20, 2008, the court heard further arguments on
addition, the Binets' attorney advised the court that they did
days. The court reserved judgment and ordered all parties and
Binet, and (2) Binet to pay Deutsch $25,000 within thirty days
after the deed and the assignment of the mortgage were filed
with the court. The order also stated that the failure to make
10 A-3227-08T2
designated as "L.H. Development Group, LLC," a company owned
exclusively by Binet.
did not negotiate the contract to purchase the Property and did
they had a verbal agreement that Binet would become the true
12, 2008. At the outset, the court noted that Binet had failed
for the Binets explained that Binet failed to make the payment
because "he [didn't] have the money." The court then entered a
11 A-3227-08T2
A trial was held on January 6 and 7, 2009, to determine the
his family's money toward the purchase, his low credit score
and she was "aware that Mr. Censor owned the home."
12 A-3227-08T2
demanded an additional $10,000. According to Binet, the $20,000
at that time and that Esther only found out that the Settlement
"didn't get any notice" that Deutsch and Censor had placed the
4
The parties stipulated to this amount.
13 A-3227-08T2
The next witness was Deutsch, who testified that he had
Deutsch confirmed that Binet had paid him $25,000 under the
action.
Esther gave a synopsis of the roles she and her husband played:
14 A-3227-08T2
The husband is taking care [of] the
financial situation in the house and really
the woman does not get involved. By this
especially because English is not my
language, I was limited . . . to understand
. . . whatever [deal was] made. So . . . I
was trusting my husband to take care [of]
everything, taking care of [the] financial
situation in the house. And the woman is
taking care [of] the household, the
children, raising the children, cooking,
baking, cleaning, doing whatever she's
supposed to do . . . to have a normal life
and a family life.
believed that she and her husband owned the Property and that
called the house in 2007 and told her that the house was in his
that when she discussed the matter with her husband, he told her
he was "in touch with the lawyer and . . . taking care of it."
15 A-3227-08T2
Following closing arguments, the court rendered an oral
stated:
16 A-3227-08T2
previously loaned monies to Censor, and
Censor had previously loaned money to Mr.
Binet. So when all of that is together,
this was a settlement for that. . . .
[Binet] agreed to pay these monies back as a
result of those loans . . . . [I]t was a
total of $145,500 of which [Binet] paid
$25,000 [and] owes $120,500 . . . based on
the preponderance of credible evidence. He
owes that money and the Judgment [will] be
entered against Mr. Binet for that amount.
5
In addition to the appeal, we have been advised that Esther
filed a separate complaint against Deutsch and Censor alleging
that the deed from Censor to Deutsch was subject to her
ownership and possessory interests in the Property.
17 A-3227-08T2
POINT ONE
POINT TWO
POINT THREE
POINT FOUR
POINT FIVE
POINT SIX
POINT SEVEN
18 A-3227-08T2
Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Boylan, 307 N.J. Super. 162,
167 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 154 N.J. 608 (1998). We must
fact and, if there was not, [we] then decide[] whether the trial
Plymouth, Inc., 216 N.J. Super. 255, 258 (App. Div. 1987).
Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). All legal conclusions will
19 A-3227-08T2
As the trial court recognized, settlement agreements are
Resources, Inc. v. Summit MRI, Inc., 318 N.J. Super. 275, 285
Super. 489, 494 (App. Div. 1993) (quoting Ross Sys. v. Linden
20 A-3227-08T2
(e) the extent to which the behavior of the
party failing to perform or to offer to
perform comports with standards of good
faith and fair dealing."
trial court observed, "a simple motion" would have resolved the
Agreement.
21 A-3227-08T2
plain language of the contract and the parties' intent, as
must first read the terms of the contract "in light of the
267 (2007).
22 A-3227-08T2
that adhesion contracts "necessarily involve indicia of
U.S. 1338, 127 S. Ct. 2032, 167 L. Ed. 2d 763 (2007). However,
Comm'n, 127 N.J. 344, 353, 356-61, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 871,
at 356.
23 A-3227-08T2
these facts, we reject the claim that the Settlement Agreement
transaction").
agree.
'[a] suitor in equity must come into court with clean hands and
he must keep them clean after his entry and throughout the
24 A-3227-08T2
As previously noted, the Settlement Agreement required
favor of Deutsch; to impose a use and occupancy fee for the fair
discharge the lis pendens, see Manzo v. Shawmut Bank, N.A., 291
N.J. Super. 194, 199 (App. Div. 1996) (noting that notices of
real property).
disagree.
25 A-3227-08T2
Rule 4:23-5(a)(1) permits the court to dismiss a claim
discovery and cannot show "good cause for other relief." The
19, 2008. Once this discovery was completed, the court should
result would have been the same had the error not occurred.
26 A-3227-08T2
State v. Ingram, 196 N.J. 23, 49 (2008) (quoting State v. R.B.,
trial that Binets' claims against Censor and Deutsch were almost
conclude from our review of the record that the Binets were
there has been no showing that the result would have been any
v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) (noting the
27 A-3227-08T2
available" unless they concern the court's jurisdiction or a
(E).
Affirmed.
28 A-3227-08T2