Zaman v. Felton

98 A.3d 503 (N.J. 2014)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Felton (D), an experienced buyer and seller of real estate, faced imminent foreclosure proceedings with respect to her unfinished home when she defaulted on a $105,000 construction mortgage. Zaman (P) is a licensed real estate agent. P and D along with Richardson, who introduced the two, met at the property to discuss its potential sale. P was unaware that the house lacked a certificate of occupancy and was uninhabitable. D offered a price of $250,000 for the property, and P made a $200,000 counteroffer. P told D that if she accepted his offer of $200,000, he would agree to a buy-back option and would allow her to remain on the property as a tenant. P and D then executed a written land sale agreement with a purchase price of $200,000, and Richardson signed the agreement as a witness. On June 23, 2007, at a closing in which neither party was represented by counsel, P and D entered into two separate agreements: a lease agreement under which D agreed to pay $1,000 per month in rent, and an agreement that gave D the option to repurchase the property within three months for $237,000. Felton signed the deed, an affidavit of title, and the buy-back agreement. The parties did not execute any mortgage documents. P gave D a cashier's check in the amount of $85,960, the balance after mortgage payoff and other closing expenses. P recorded the deed. For the next seventeen months, D occupied the property, but did not pay rent in accordance with the lease agreement, or exercise her contractual right to repurchase the property. In December 2008, P filed the underlying complaint, claiming that he was the purchaser in an enforceable land sale agreement. D filed a counterclaim based on fraud, slander of title, violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), violations of the Fair Foreclosure Act (FFA), and violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA). D claimed that the parties' transactions collectively comprised an equitable mortgage and that the transactions were voidable. The jury rendered a verdict in P's favor with respect to the question of whether D knowingly sold her property to him. The trial court subsequently conducted a bench trial and rejected D's remaining claims, including her contention that the transactions gave rise to an equitable mortgage. An Appellate Division panel affirmed the trial court's judgment. D appealed.