The New Jersey State Bar Association was a friend-of-the-court in a case that questions procedures used in real estate closings, the role title companies should play, and the use of experts and net opinions.

Bianchi v. Ladjen was heard before a three-judge Appellate Division panel in Trenton that included Judges Jack Sabatino, Michael Ostrer and Lisa Rose. NJSBA Trustee Diana Manning argued on behalf of the association.

At the request of the Appellate Division, the NJSBA joined the matter. The association weighed in on whether obligations asserted by the plaintiff and his experts should be a question for the court to decide, and absent reference to any authority or supporting materials establishing a duty whether the expert's opinion is a net opinion and should be recognized as such and barred. In addition to Manning, Trustee Evelyn Storch and John Kaveney wrote the brief filed in the case.

In this residential real estate closing case, an escrow agreement drafted by a title company's settlement agent was executed by the parties on the date of the closing, pending the anticipated clearance of the buyer's certified checks for the purchase amount. Between the time the escrow agreement was executed and the funds cleared, the pipes froze, causing water damage in the home. No homeowner's insurance was purchased to cover the premises during the escrow period, and a lawsuit was brought against the attorney, title company and seller alleging, among other things, negligence.

In granting summary judgment to the defendants, the trial court ruled that the plaintiff's expert reports from an attorney with experience in residential real estate transactions and a licensed title producer were inadmissible net opinions. The experts alleged the attorney and title company both owed a duty to the buyer and breached their respective duties and standards of care. The trial court noted that the law does not recognize the obligations asserted by the experts, and that the sellers were not liable to the buyer under the terms of the contract or applicable law.

The association urged the appeals panel to confirm the trial court's finding.

In the appeal, the appellate court is being asked to determine:

  • Whether the particular duties and standards of care asserted by the plaintiff and his experts pose questions of law for the court, or issues to be resolved by the jury;
  • Whether the specific obligations asserted by the plaintiff and his experts should be recognized; and
  • Whether the trial court erred in barring these experts and in granting summary judgment.

A piece of the arguments centered on a question Judge Sabatino asked: Who is best equipped to determine the boundaries of professional malpractice claims, experts or the courts?

Manning noted the expert opinions in the case were not substantive and did not point to case law, the Rules of Professional Conduct, publications or similar materials upon which to form the basis of an opinion. That is problematic, she said. Expert testimony is critical in cases where the duty of care is an issue.

“Our position is that it is the role of the trial court…to determine if there is a duty, and each case is going to be somewhat fact-specific. The court always is required to issue the ruling on whether or not there is a duty of care,” she said.

The panel reserved its opinion.

“You gave us a lot to think about. We'll get an opinion out in due course,” Sabatino said.