Unpublished Opinions for the Week of March 6, 2017

11-2-2611 Finderne Heights Condo. Ass’n v. Condo.Mgmt. NJ, LLC, N.J. Super. App; Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) Plaintiff appealed judgement for defendant in action arising from the termination of a property management agreement. Defendant provided property management services to plaintiff. A dispute arose about counsel fees defendant had incurred defending a lawsuit, plaintiff terminated the agreement and sued and defendant counterclaimed alleging lack of notice under the contract. The trial judge questioned the credibility of plaintiff’s witnesses and found that board meeting minutes and a letter refuted the witnesses’ testimony. The court found that the trial judge’s finding that plaintiff failed to prove its claim of breach of contract and unjust enrichment was amply supported by the credible evidence in the record. The trial judge’s conclusions that plaintiff was aware of the increased monthly fee and assented to its payment for 16 months defeated plaintiff’s claims.

15-2-2612 U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Monk, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) Following defendant’s default on her mortgage, plaintiff filed the instant foreclosure action and the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The court entered final judgment for plaintiff and struck defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses. On appeal, defendant argued that plaintiff failed to present competent evidence that it had an ownership interest in the note and mortgage to establish standing to foreclose. Additionally, defendant argued that the trial court erred in striking her answer and defenses and dismissing her counterclaim. The court affirmed for substantially the reasons set forth by the trial judge concluding the record supported the decision and judgment. The court noted the trial judge rejected defendant’s defense of unclean hands as “a conclusory statement unsupported by facts.” Additionally, the judge found the proffered defenses of equitable and estoppel equally unavailing, noting that “a generalized conclusory statement that [p]laintiff should have properly examined the loan documents does not amount to a sufficient showing of negligence [.]” Moreover, defendant’s counterclaims under TILA and CFA were time-barred as she failed to bring the claim for damages within its one-year or six-year, respectively, statute of limitations periods. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial judge was affirmed.