CONSUMER FRAUD ATTORNEY IN BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES: LAWYER'S ILLICIT CONDUCT FOUND TO OFFEND CONSUMER FRAUD ACT (CFA)

CONSUMER FRAUD LAWYER IN BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES: THE NEED FOR SPECIFICITY IN PLEADING A CONSUMER FRAUD CASE

CONSUMER FRAUD LAWYER IN BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES: THE LONE STAR CONCEPT IN THE ATTORNEY FEE-SHIFTING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

CONSUMER FRAUD LAW IN BERGEN AND PASSIAC COUNTIES: DOES THE CFA APPLY TO COMPLEX TRANSACTIONS?

NEW JERSEY'S CONSUMER FRAUD ACT (CFA) IN BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES: THE APPLICATION OF CFA ON THE SALE OF A SECURITY

After returning a $12,000 settlement in a personal injury claim, Margaret Lee took her check to the Hillside Branch of First Union

National Bank and instructed an employee to invest $2,000 in a mutual fund. That investment was never made. The bank

employee, who failed to make the investment sought to settle the case with Lee personally. The settlement was rejected and

Lee filed an action under New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). The case was ultimately dismissed by the trial division

because it involved a securities investment. On appeal, however, the trial court's decision was reversed.

Recently, the Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division's decision and concluded that the CFA did not apply to the sale of

securities. In reaching its decision, the court followed the legislative history and observed that while the legislators' intention

was to have the CFA broadly applied, the 1976 amendment to the CFA specifically defined merchandise in a way that did not

include securities.

CONSUMER FRAUD LAW IN BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES: THE BROAD SCOPE OF NEW JERSEY'S CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

As I have explained many times in the past, New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act (CFA)is conceived to be "one of the strongest consumer protection laws in the nation." The primary purpose of the CFA is to protect the consumer against loss resulting from fraudulent practices by persons engaged in the sale of goods and services.

In May, the Appellate Division decided a case involving a CFA claim filed by a homeowner against a "cleaning and restoration" service that was hired to remediate a finished basement damaged by a flood. After a protracted procedural history, the trial court issued a judgment in favor of the homeowner including over $40,000 in attorney fees and costs. The trial court also concluded that the homeowner did not have to pay the restoration company the balance of the contract price despite the fact that the work had been completed.(See prior blog postings on this issue). One of the major issues in the trial court's analysis of the controversy related to the fact that the remediation company failed to specifically identify the cost of the work in its contract. 

On appeal, the remediation company argued that it was not a home improvement contractor and as a result, it did not have any responsibility to follow the requirements of the statute that relates to home improvement contractors. (Statute). The company also said that the homeowner had received a windfall because of its technical breach when the court discharged the homeowner's responsibility to pay the balance of this contract's value.

In rejecting the remediation company's arguments, the court looked to the language of the Statute which defines material and service providers as those who remodel, alter, paint, renovate or restore residential property. The court then observed that the advertisement disseminated by the remediation company said rather clearly that it was a "cleaning and restoration" franchise. 

As to the second argument, the Appellate Division concluded that there was no evidence presented by the restoration company that would justify depriving the homeowner of the right under the CFA to obtain a dismissal of the restoration company's claim for payment.

New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act: and Its Contractor's Registration Act

New Jersey’s Contractor’s Registration Act (Registration Act) is intertwined with its Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). The Registration Act does not usually apply to the construction of a new home. A week or so ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that both the Registration Act and the CFA applied to new home construction where the owners functioned as a general contractor and hired a subcontractor to install molding, interior doors, chair rails, and cabinets in their kitchen. In reaching its opinion, the Court once again observed that New Jersey’s legislators created the CFA to be read as one of the broadest consumer protection laws in the country.

I have published a book titled "Walk the Chalkline or Else: A Home Improvement Contractor’s Guide to New Jersey’s Contractor’s Registration Act and Consumer Fraud Act " which you can download from the website www.ftlucianolaw.com. You can read other related articles in the Library Section on this website.