Hibbert v. Bellmawr Park Mut. Hous. Corp.

937 F.Supp.2d 565

Mark E. HIBBERT, Plaintiff,

v.BELLMAWR PARK MUTUAL HOUSING CORPORATION, Pat Levins, and Bob McCormick, Defendants.

Civil No. 10–5386 (NLH).

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

March 28, 2013.

Barry J. Beran, Esquire, Beran & Beran, Esqs., Cherry Hill, NJ, for Plaintiff Mark E. Hibbert, Sr.

William J. Martin, Esquire Martin, Gunn & Martin Westmont, NJ, for Defendants Bellmawr Park Mutual Housing Corporation and Pat Levins.

Bob McCormick, Bellmawr, NJ, pro se.

OPINION

HILLMAN, District Judge.

Currently pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Bellmawr Park Mutual Housing Corporation (“Bellmawr Park”), Pat Levins, and Bob McCormick [Docket No. 31.] For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter involves a discrimination dispute between Plaintiff Mark E. Hibbert and a non-profit corporation that provides low-cost housing in southern New Jersey, Defendant Bellmawr Park. Hibbert is deaf and unable to communicate, except through sign language.¹ (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. C, Dep. of Mark Hibbert, Sr. (“Hibbert Dep.”) 112:11–13, 113:9–10.)

Hibbert has been a sporadic resident of Bellmawr Park since childhood. Between 1964 and 1979, he lived with his parents in a residence in the complex. ² ( Id. at 62:20–25, 63:1.) In 2003, Hibbert's father gave him a house in Bellmawr Park, located at 506 West Browning Road, that formerly belonged to Hibbert's grandmother. ( Id. at 65:23–66:3.) According to Plaintiff, his mother and aunt accompanied him to a meeting with Bellmawr Park office manager Patricia Levins ³ to sign the Mutual Ownership Contract for ownership of the 506 West Browning residence. ( Id. at 67:16–17, 70:15–71:2.) Plaintiff signed the contract that day, but avers that he did so at the behest of his family and did not understand what occurred since no sign language interpreter was present during the meeting. ( Id. at 66:6–67:22, 70:15–71:9; Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. E.) Upon signing the contract, Hibbert moved into the residence. In 2005, he built an addition and added several improvements to the property. ⁴ (Hibbert Dep. 17:13–18; Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. J.)

In 2009, Plaintiff expressed an intent to sell the house and move to Maine with his wife, who is also deaf. Plaintiff met with the Bellmawr Park Board of Trustees on December 1, 2009 to discuss his intent to sell his home and terminate his membership in Bellmawr Park. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Exs. F & I; Hibbert Dep. 111:13–25, 153:3–17.) Hibbert's teenage son, Mark Hibbert Jr. (“Mark Jr.”), served some role as his interpreter during the meeting. ( Id. at 121:13–122:7, 175:14–23; Ex. F.) Defendant Levins and several other members of the Board also attended the meeting. (Hibbert Dep. 122:24–25; Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. D, Dep. of Patricia Levins (“Levins Dep.”) 50: 8–18.) According to Plaintiff, he requested that a sign language interpreter be present, but one was not provided. (Hibbert Dep. 71:10–23; 167:16–23, 175:5–13.) As a result, Hibbert maintains that he is unsure of what actually occurred at the meeting because he could not hear and was unable to understand. ( Id. at 122:13–124:9.) Moreover, he contends that he never made a firm commitment to sell his interest in his property and move to Maine. ( Id. 149:18–150:19; 164:9–11.)

Following the December 2009 meeting, Defendant Robert McCormick was contacted by Levins regarding the 506 West Browning property and told him that Hibbert wanted to sell his home and its improvements. ( Id. at 154:7–11; Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. L, Dep. of Robert McCormick (“McCormick Dep.”) 12:12–25.) McCormick was interested in purchasing a unit in Bellmawr Park because his daughter lived there, and he had previously submitted a housing application to the Board several years before. ( Id. at 13:6–14:6.) Following this initial contact, McCormick and Hibbert engaged in some form of communications regarding the sale of the property over the course of several months.⁵ ( Id. at 15:17–17:11.) During these conversations, Mark Jr., at the time a minor, served as the intermediary and interpreter. (Hibbert Dep. 177:12–20, 179:16–20; McCormick Dep. 15:21–16:7; Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. H, Dep. of Mark Hibbert, Jr. (“Mark Jr. Dep.”) 33:20–34:9.) In this role, Mark Jr. relayed information between McCormick and his father, and met with McCormick in person to discuss the sale. ( Id.; McCormick Dep. 20:25–21:11, 27:15–29:18.) According to Defendants, during this time, Hibbert repeatedly changed his mind about whether he wished to sell the property. (Mark Jr. Dep. 28:24–25, 37:12–18, 47:10–19; McCormick Dep. 16:11–21:12.)

Whatever his intentions regarding the Bellmawr property, it appears uncontroverted that Hibbert inquired about properties in Maine. (Hibbert Dep. 53:5–10.) In February of 2010, he applied for a loan in the amount of $124,000 from Peoples United Bank. ( Id. at 45:24–46:25, 47:3–13, 53:11–54:6; Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. Q.) On the loan application, Hibbert listed his contact address as “Maine, TBD.” ( Id.) In early March of 2010, the Bank denied the request for the loan. ( Id.)

According to Mark Jr., on March 5, 2010, Hibbert finally made up his mind to sell the property, and Mark Jr. contacted Levins that day to inform her of his father's intent to sell and vacate the premises. (Mark Jr. Dep. 34:13–25, 50:3–17, 57:23–58:5.) Although the date of his signature is in contention, at some point Hibbert had signed a “move-out form” which indicated that he was moving and provided an address in Wells, Maine for future contact purposes. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Exs. N & O.) On March 7, 2010, Hibbert received a check in the amount of $20,000 which the defendants connect to the sale of the property. (Hibbert Dep. 136:23–138:15.) Hibbert says he did not know what the check was for, that it was handed to him in an envelope on the day he moved out, and that he had neither negotiated nor entered into any agreement to sell his interest in the property. ( Id. at 162:18–25.) He acknowledges that he deposited the check into his bank account on March 8, 2010, but states that he did so for “safekeeping.” ( Id. at 137:21–25, 139:14–17, 151:10–13.) There are no documents in the record establishing the purpose of the check, or any other documents memorializing the purported sale of Hibbert's interest in the property.

On March 7, 2010, Plaintiff and his wife moved out of 506 West Browning. Plaintiff hired a moving truck to assist with the move and spent the night packing. ( Id. at 139:22–140:2.) Approximately eleven individuals were present during the move, including Levins and several members of Plaintiff's family. ( Id. at 140:10–21; Mark Jr. Dep. 58:14–25; Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. R, Dep. of Gaudencio G. Gonzales (“Gonzales Dep.”) 16:18–17:25.) According to Levins, all of Plaintiff's belongings were packed and ready to move out that morning, and she communicated with him during the move primarily through handwritten notes. (Levins Dep. 78:1–81:12; Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. S.)

Hibbert claims that he was unlawfully evicted and forced to move out of his home on March 7, 2010. (Hibbert Dep. 41:20–25, 63:13–16, 141:19–25.) More specifically, he believes that Levins, McCormick, and Mark Jr. took advantage of his disability and engaged in some sort of scheme to acquire his property. He points to the hurried nature of the move, McCormick's aggressive pursuit of the property, his minor son's contacts with the Defendants, the overall lack of communication and confusion stemming from his disability, the unexplained check provided just two days before he vacated the premises in an amount below the value of the improvements, and the absence of any documents memorialized a conveyance of an interest in the property as evidence that Defendants took advantage of him and forced him from the property.

Hibbert filed a complaint against Bellmawr Park, Levins, and McCormick on September 17, 2010 in New Jersey state court. Plaintiff's pleading alleged violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), and Defendants therefore timely removed the matter to this Court on October 18, 2010 on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. [Docket No. 1.] Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint on April 24, 2012, in which he asserted the following counts against Defendants: (1) breach of contract; (2) violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”), N.J.S.A § 10:5–12 et seq.; (3) violation of the New Jersey Fair Eviction Notice Act, N.J.S.A. § 2A:42–10.15 et seq.; (4) violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; (5) violation of the New Jersey Statute of Frauds, N.J.S.A. § 25:1–5 et seq.; and (6) violation of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. [Docket No. 27.] On July 16, 2012, Defendants Bellmawr Park and Levins moved for summary judgment on the entirety of Plaintiff's amended complaint. [Docket No. 31.] Defendant McCormick, appearing pro se, filed a letter with the Court on September 10, 2012. [Docket No. 34.] Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition on September 21, 2012 [Docket No. 36], to which Defendants Bellmawr Park and Levins replied on September 28, 2012. [Docket No. 37.] Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for judicial consideration.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate where the Court is satisfied that “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

An issue is “genuine” if it is supported by evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty...