$175,000 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AWARD – BREACH OF CONTRACT – PLAINTIFFS
CONTEND DEFENDANT LLC AND ITS MANAGING MEMBER INDIVIDUALLY TOOK
MONEY FROM PLAINTIFFS FOR BOGUS INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY ACQUISITION
AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND, AFTER AGREEING TO RETURN FUNDS, DID NOT
DO SO – PARTIES ARRIVED AT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO RECOUP PORTION OF
WHAT WAS OWED TO PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT FAILED TO PAY ON SETTLEMENT,
EVEN AFTER MOTION TO ENFORCE WAS GRANTED.
Hudson County, NJ
In this breach of contract case, the plaintiffs
asserted that the defendants signed an
assignment agreement for the plaintiffs to invest
in a development project for a sum of money and
that, when the project fell through, the defendants
fraudulently mishandled and misused funds that
should have been returned to the plaintiffs as a
refund of their investment in the failed project.
The plaintiffs brought suit for breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of contract, conversion, legal
malpractice, vicarious liability, fraud, and piercing
the corporate veil and imposing personal liability
on the managing member of the defendant LLC.
On October 6, 2017, the defendant managing
member of the defendant LLC executed an assign-
ment agreement with the plaintiff LLC through its prin-
cipal members. In exchange for the plaintiffs
transferring their 33.33% interest in a property devel-
opment project, the defendant agreed to pay each
of the plaintiff members $175,000 or $350,000 total
within one business day of the signing of the Assign-
ment Agreement. The plaintiffs’ investment funds were
supposedly being held in escrow by the defendant
attorney and law firm. However, when the deal fell
through and the plaintiffs requested return of their
funds, they were told that the funds were in the pos-
session of the defendant LLC. The plaintiffs sought re-
turn of the funds from the defendant LLC which, they
maintained, was a shell company created in cooper-
ation with the defendant escrow attorney. The
plaintiffs demanded return of their investment funds.
The defendant managing member made a wire
transfer payment to the plaintiffs in the amount of
$75,000 on November 2, 2017 and a payment by
check for $75,000 5 days later. The check was dis-
honored and another dishonored check for $100,000
was received by the plaintiffs on November 22, 2017.
On October 10, 2019, a settlement demand was
made to the defendant managing member in the
amount of $175,000, representing the amount of the
dishonored checks. The defendant’s attorney con-
firmed the matter was settled and that payments
would be made by the defendant on October 31,
November 30, and December 31, 2019. The
defendant failed to make any payments.
The plaintiffs were granted an Order to Enforce Settle-
ment on January 24, 2020, but the defendant made
no attempt to comply with the Order. The plaintiffs
then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against
the defendant. The defendant asserted that he en-
tered into settlement agreements in good faith and
agreed to refund that plaintiffs’ investment in the de-
velopment project as a courtesy even though, he
claimed, neither he nor the defendant LLC was
legally required to do so.
The court granted summary judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs and against the defendant managing mem-
ber of the defunct LLC, personally, in the amount of
$175,000.
REFERENCE
Singhvi, et al. vs. Martone, Esq. et al. Docket no. L-
000504-18; Judge Joseph A. Turula.
Attorney for plaintiff: Bradley M. Wilson of Nowell,
P.A. in Hackensack, NJ. Attorney for defendant:
Edward Bassetti of Bassetti Law, LLC in Saddle Brook,
NJ.
COMMENTARY
The court’s opinion on the summary judgment stated that the motion
was: “Granted, pursuant to R.4:46. New Jersey Courts have made it
clearthatsettlementagreements are binding and enforceable even in
the absence of a writing. See Pascarella v. Bruck, 190 N.J. Super. 118
(App. Div. 1983) (enforcing an oral settlement agreement). See
Hagrish v. Olson, 254 N.J. Super. 133 (App. Div. 1992) (settlement
correspondence between attorneys which required defendants to pay
a stated sum of money is enforceable even though the plaintiff failed
to execute general releases). See Williams v. Vito 365 N.J. Super. 225
(Law Div. 2003) (settlement communications between attorneys held
to be enforceable). See Jennings v. Reed, 381 N.J. Super. 217 (App.
Div. 2005) (holding that it is well settled that settlements made by at-
torneys are enforceable against their clients). Here, the record shows
that Wolk’s attorney stated that his client agreed to settlement. (See
Certification in Support, Exh. #8, Email correspondence between
Wilson, Esq., and Bassetti, Esq., October 23 & 24, 2019). Additionally,
the movant has certified that Wolk has not made any payments in sat-
isfaction thereof. Therefore, summary judgment in [sic] entered
against Wolk and in favor of the plaintiffs, in the amount of
$175,000.”
7
New Jersey Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
Subscribe Now
