Unpublished Opinions for the Week of February 27, 2017

06-2-2574 Obado v. Fin. Res. Fed. Credit Union, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) In 2008, plaintiff retained the services of a law firm, and paid the firm’s retainer with a check from a banking account plaintiff had with defendant. The law firm presented plaintiff’s check to defendant, which was processed in an electronic transaction. The transaction caused an overdraft, and plaintiff subsequently deposited funds to cover the overdraft. After plaintiff became dissatisfied with the law firm’s services, he filed a complaint to obtain the return of his retainer. When that complaint was dismissed, plaintiff contacted defendant, alleging that he did not authorize payment of the retainer check to the law firm, had no knowledge of the “unlawful electronic check transfer” and only learned about the transaction “sometime in 2011, or 2012″, and requested a refund. Defendant denied plaintiff’s request, citing federal regulations that required account holders to notify financial institutions of disputes regarding transactions within 60 days of the date of the account statement. Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant, and defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff’s claim was barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations. In response, plaintiff argued that the statute of limitations was tolled by the discovery rule. The trial court granted the motion, finding plaintiff’s assertion of the discovery rule unsubstantiated by the record, which showed that plaintiff deposited funds to cover the overdraft caused by the check. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court’s determination was error, or alternatively, that defendant failed to provide him with required regulatory notices. The court rejected plaintiff’s arguments, affirming the determinations and ruling of the trial court, and further noting that the discovery rule did not apply to negotiable instruments because the limitations period began when the instrument was negotiated.

11-2-2575 Sycamore Energy-Rockaway Retail, LLC v. A.J.’s Fuel, Inc., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (24 pp.) Plaintiff entered an agreement to purchase certain assets from Oil Guy, Inc., owned by defendant Anna Barton. The agreement warranted that no other individual or entity had rights, title, or interest in the purchased assets. However, plaintiff alleged that subsequent to the purchase, defendant Dennis Peterson, Barton’s brother, claimed an ownership interest in Oil Guy and formed a competitor, defendant A.J’s Fuel, Inc., using Oil Guy’s customer list. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged breach of the purchase agreement, fraud, conversion, and as to Peterson, defamation and tortious interference with plaintiff’s economic interests. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in ordering pendente lite payments to Barton, denying plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, granting Barton summary judgment on the fraud and conversion claims, quashing the trial subpoena served on Oil Guy, barring plaintiff’s expert testimony on damages and other evidence, and entering judgment in favor of Barton. Plaintiff further argued that the trial court erred in determining that Peterson was not an owner of Oil Guy, and granting him summary judgment and an award of sanctions. Defendants cross-appealed, with Barton arguing that she should have been granted fees and costs for plaintiff’s frivolous litigation, and Peterson arguing that his award was insufficient. The court affirmed the trial court’s determinations with respect to Peterson, finding that plaintiff presented no evidence that Peterson had an ownership interest in Oil Guy, whereas defendants presented evidence showing that Barton had sole ownership of the company. The court reversed Peterson’s award because the trial court had found that plaintiff had a legitimate basis for its suit that only evaporated after discovery. As to Barton, the court affirmed the trial court, finding that plaintiff’s allegations were directed to Peterson’s action and agreeing that the evidence demonstrated that Barton had no control over Peterson.