MICHAEL VANCE VS. JOAN SCERBO (L-2931-16, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
    APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
    This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
    internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    DOCKET NO. A-2019-17T4
    MICHAEL VANCE, LORI VANCE,
    and WALKER MANAGEMENT
    SYSTEMS, INC.,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    JOAN SCERBO, Personal
    representative of the Estate of
    GABRIEL AMBROSIO, ESQ.,
    ANTHONY P. AMBROSIO, ESQ.,
    LAW OFFICE OF JOHN T. AMBROSIO,
    AMBROSIO & TOMCZAK, and
    LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY P.
    AMBROSIO,
    Defendants,
    and
    JOHN T. AMBROSIO, ESQ. and
    AMBROSIO & ASSOCIATES, LLC,
    Defendants-Respondents.
    _______________________________
    Argued February 4, 2019 – Decided February 26, 2019
    Before Judges Sumners and Mitterhoff.
    On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
    Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L-2931-16.
    David A. Berlin argued the cause for appellants
    (Weisberg Law, attorneys; Matthew B. Weisberg, on
    the briefs).
    Cathleen Kelly Rebar, argued the cause for respondents
    (Rebar Bernstiel, attorneys; Cathleen Kelly Rebar, of
    counsel; Jeannie Park Lee, on the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Plaintiffs Michael Vance, Lori Vance, and Walker Management Systems,
    Inc. ("Walker") appeal from the Law Division's December 7, 2017 order
    granting summary judgment to defendants John Ambrosio, Esq. and Ambrosio
    & Associates, LLC and dismissing their legal malpractice complaint with
    prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.
    I.
    We summarize the following facts from the record, viewing "the facts in
    the light most favorable to [plaintiff,] the non-moving party." Globe Motor Co.
    v. Igdalev, 
    225 N.J. 469
    , 479 (2016) (citing R. 4:46-2(c)).
    The Asset Purchase Agreement
    The facts underlying this legal malpractice action stem from a dispute over
    a contract to purchase assets and customers lists for a solid waste collection
    A-2019-17T4
    2
    business. In March 2009, Meadowbrook Industries, LLC ("Meadowbrook") and
    Walker, both licensed solid waste collection utilities, entered into an Asset
    Purchase Agreement ("APA") in which Meadowbrook agreed to acquire
    substantially all of Walker's solid waste collector assets, including Walker's
    physical equipment and customer lists. The APA also contained a restrictive
    covenant preventing Walker, Lori Vance, and Michael Vance from competing
    with Meadowbrook for a period of five years. At the time of the transaction,
    plaintiff Lori Vance was the sole owner of Walker.
    On May 11, 2009, the parties entered into an amendment to the APA,
    drafted by Meadowbrook's counsel, which detailed how Meadowbrook would
    begin servicing Walker's customers. Thereafter, a closing for the transaction
    occurred on July 10, 2009. Meadowbrook's attorney attended the closing, but
    Lori Vance, on behalf of Walker, was unrepresented by counsel.
    At the time of the closing, Walker was unable to deliver its containers free
    of liens and encumbrances because title to the containers was held by various
    creditors and Walker lacked the funds to satisfy the outstanding debts to the
    creditors. The parties added a provision to the closing memorandum whereby
    Meadowbrook would assume the debt and indemnify Walker against any claims
    A-2019-17T4
    3
    made by creditors. According to Lori Vance, Meadowbrook surreptitiously
    added these terms to the closing memorandum without her knowledge.
    Approximately one week after the closing, Meadowbrook advised Walker
    that it was disqualified from taking the assignment of service contracts wi th the
    State of New Jersey due to its previous violations of the "pay-to-play" law. Lori
    Vance affirms that had Meadowbrook disclosed the "pay-to-play" ban on
    servicing the State contracts, she would not have sold Walker's assets to
    Meadowbrook.
    The Underlying Meadowbrook Action
    On September 1, 2009, Meadowbrook filed a complaint against Walker,
    Lori Vance, and Michael Vance, alleging breach of contract and violation of
    restrictive covenant provisions of the APA ("Meadowbrook action").              In
    December 2009, Walker retained its counsel for the first time and answered the
    complaint. Walker also counterclaimed against Meadowbrook, alleging the
    following four counts: (1) Meadowbrook breached the APA by negotiating
    down Walker's debts; (2) Meadowbrook breached the covenant of good faith and
    fair dealing by surreptitiously adding terms to the closing memorandum; (3)
    Meadowbrook committed fraud by surreptitiously adding terms to the closing
    A-2019-17T4
    4
    memorandum; and (4) Meadowbrook breached the covenant of good faith and
    fair dealing by failing to disclose that it could not perform the State contracts.
    In April 2010, while discovery was underway, Walker retained Gabriel
    Ambrosio, Esq. to represent them in the Meadowbrook litigation. In October
    2010, Gabriel Ambrosio became terminally ill, and the matter transferred to his
    brother and law partner, Anthony Ambrosio, Esq. While the matter was being
    handled by Anthony Ambrosio, plaintiffs' counterclaims were dismissed for
    failure to provide discovery to Meadowbrook.
    In January 2011, defendants John Ambrosio and Ambrosio & Associates
    took over the case. Defendants restored Walker's counterclaims and responded
    to outstanding discovery requests. In May 2011, Meadowbrook filed a motion
    for summary judgment on the issue of liability. In opposition, Walker argued
    that the APA was unenforceable without prior approval from the New Jersey
    Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP").             Additionally, Walker
    asserted that the July 10, 2009 closing memorandum was secured by fraud
    because Meadowbrook had added terms without Lori Vance's knowledge.
    The motion court concluded that the DEP should have been notified of the
    transaction and that the obligation to give such notice was borne by both parties,
    but that the failure to obtain DEP approval did not render the contract illegal,
    A-2019-17T4
    5
    unenforceable, or void. The court granted summary judgment to Meadowbrook
    on liability and, following a trial on damages, entered judgment in favor of
    Meadowbrook in the amount of $38,166.50.
    Walker, still represented by John Ambrosio and Ambrosio & Associates,
    appealed to this court. See Meadowbrook Indus., LLC v. Walker Mgmt. Sys.,
    Inc., No. A-3568-11 (App. Div. Mar. 5, 2013). On appeal, Walker argued
    "[b]ecause the transfer of assets was not approved by the DEP, the contract is
    rendered illegal, against public policy, and is thus, unenforceable." 
    Id. at 7.
    We concluded that although both parties were required to seek approval
    from the DEP, the failure to obtain DEP approval subjected the parties only to
    potential enforcement penalties and did not render the contract illegal or
    unenforceable. 
    Id. at 8-11.
    Additionally, we concluded that the doctrine of
    unclean hands barred Walker from arguing that the APA was rendered illegal by
    the failure to obtain DEP approval. 
    Id. at 10-11.
    For these reasons, we affirmed
    the judgment in favor of Meadowbrook. 
    Id. at 11.
    The Instant Malpractice Action
    On October 31, 2016, Michael Vance, Lori Vance, and Walker filed a
    complaint against the estate of Gabriel Ambrosio, Anthony Ambrosio, John
    Ambrosio and each of the attorney's law firms, alleging four counts:              (1)
    A-2019-17T4
    6
    professional negligence/malpractice and simple negligence; (2) breach of
    contract/covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) breach of fiduciary duty;
    and (4) loss of consortium. 1 Plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to argue
    the proper theory of fraud in the Meadowbrook action when opposing summary
    judgment. Lori Vance affirms that despite her requests to do so, defendants
    failed to argue that Meadowbrook's fraudulent failure to disclose that it could
    not service the State contracts voided the APA from its inception. Plaintiffs
    aver that John Ambrosio told them not to pursue this theory because it was
    "simpler to keep one defense and . . . if the contract is illegal, not hing else
    matters."    Plaintiffs assert that the motion court would not have granted
    summary judgment in the Meadowbrook action had defendants raised their
    preferred theory of fraud.
    On March 13, 2017, all defendants answered the complaint.            On
    September 13, 2017, defendants John Ambrosio and Ambrosio & Associates
    (together "Ambrosio defendants"), LLC filed a motion for summary judgment. 2
    1
    Plaintiffs later withdrew the loss of consortium claim.
    2
    In their motion for summary judgment, John Ambrosio and Ambrosio &
    Associates indicated that they were improperly pled as John T. Ambrosio d/b/a
    Ambrosio & Tomczak f/d/b/a Law Office of John T. Ambrosio. The other
    defendants, Joan Scerbo, Anthony Ambrosio, and Law Office of Anthony P.
    A-2019-17T4
    7
    On October 17, 2017, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Ambrosio defendants'
    motion for summary judgment.
    Following oral argument on December 1, 2017, the trial court rendered an
    oral opinion granting summary judgment in favor of the Ambrosio defendants.
    The trial judge found that plaintiffs had not advanced a plausible theory that the
    contract would have been void on the basis of fraud. The trial judge concluded
    "there's nothing in mind that would lead to the conclusion that had this issue of
    pay-to-play been disclosed to the court that any different result would have
    yielded as a result of that disclosure." On December 7, 2017, the trial court
    entered an order granting summary judgment to the Ambrosio defendants.
    Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.         On
    appeal, plaintiffs present the following points for our review:
    A. Moving Defendants Failed to Raise the Correct
    Theory of Fraud in the Underlying Meadowbrook
    Action, namely that the Agreement was Void due to
    Meadowbrook's       Fraudulent     Omission      that
    Meadowbrook was Banned from Servicing New
    Jersey State contracts due to a pay-for-play scandal.
    B. Plaintiffs would have Prevailed on the Correct
    Theory of Fraud.
    Ambrosio, also filed motions for summary judgment, which plaintiff did not
    oppose. Plaintiffs have not appealed the orders dismissing these other
    defendants.
    A-2019-17T4
    8
    C. Plaintiffs would have Prevailed on the Correct
    Theory of Fraud as the Appellate Division’s
    Determination of Unclean Hands was Made as a
    Result of Moving Defendants' Malpractice and the
    Determination was Limited.
    1. Plaintiffs would have Prevailed on the Correct
    Theory of Fraud as Appellate Division’s
    Determination of Unclean Hands was Made as a
    Result of Moving Defendants' Malpractice.
    2. Plaintiffs would have Prevailed on the Correct
    Theory of Fraud as the Appellate Division’s
    Determination of Unclean Hands was Limited to
    the Subject Matter of NJDEP Approval.
    D. Plaintiff, Michael Vance suffered a Non-Compete Provision
    without Compensation due to the Court's finding that WMS, not
    Meadowbrook, breached the Underlying Agreement.
    E. The motion judge independently raised issues that were not
    among the basis argued by Defendants in their briefs or oral
    argument.
    In response, the Ambrosio defendants contend, among other things, that
    the trial court properly granted summary judgment because plaintiffs presented
    insufficient evidence to support their assertion that they would have been
    successful on their preferred theory of fraud.
    A-2019-17T4
    9
    II.
    A.
    We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
    standard as the trial court. Henry v. N.J. Dep't of Human Servs., 
    204 N.J. 320
    ,
    330 (2010). Summary judgment must be granted if "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 challenged and
    that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law." R.
    4:46-2(c). The court considers "whether the competent evidential materials
    presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are
    sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in
    favor of the non-moving party." Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 
    142 N.J. 520
    , 540 (1995).
    Although Rule 4:46-1 permits a party to file a motion for summary
    judgment before the close of discovery, "[g]enerally, summary judgment is
    inappropriate prior to the completion of discovery." Wellington v. Estate of
    Wellington, 
    359 N.J. Super. 484
    , 496 (App. Div. 2003). A party opposing a
    motion for summary judgment on the grounds that discovery is incomplete,
    however, must "demonstrate with some degree of particularity the likelihood
    A-2019-17T4
    10
    that further discovery will supply the missing elements of the cause of action."
    Badiali v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Grp., 
    220 N.J. 544
    , 555 (2015) (quoting
    
    Wellington, 359 N.J. Super. at 496
    ); see also Trinity Church v. Lawson-Bell,
    
    394 N.J. Super. 159
    , 166 (App. Div. 2007).
    When additional discovery on material issues may give rise to a jury
    question, the party opposing summary judgment should be given the opportunity
    to take discovery before disposition of the motion. See Wilson v. Amerada Hess
    Corp., 
    168 N.J. 236
    , 253-54 (2001) (reversing summary judgment where
    requested discovery might support inference of bad faith sufficient to raise jury
    question); Mohamed v. Iglesia Evangelica Oasis De Dalvacion, 
    424 N.J. Super. 489
    , 499-500 (App. Div. 2012) (reversing summary judgment where discovery
    period had five months to run and additional discovery was material to whether
    defendant engaged in commercial activity on its premises).
    In this case, the Ambrosio defendants moved for summary judgment on
    September 13, 2017, and trial court granted summary judgment on December 1,
    2017. The discovery deadline was set to expire on March 14, 2018. Therefore,
    plaintiffs contend that further discovery, including the taking of depositions,
    A-2019-17T4
    11
    would have supported their claims. Mindful of this contention and guided by
    the above standard of review, we address the parties' arguments.3
    B.
    We first consider whether plaintiffs have advanced a prima facie claim of
    legal malpractice. To prevail on a legal malpractice claim, a plaintiff must
    establish the following elements:      "(1) the existence of an attorney-client
    relationship creating a duty of care by the defendant attorney, (2) the breach of
    that duty by the defendant, and (3) proximate causation of the damages claimed
    by the plaintiff." McGrogan v. Till, 
    167 N.J. 414
    , 425 (2001). "The most
    common way to prove the harm inflicted by [legal] malpractice is to proceed by
    way of a 'suit within a suit' in which a plaintiff presents the evidence that would
    3
    Before addressing the merits of plaintiffs' arguments, we note that the
    Ambrosio defendants assert that plaintiff's brief should be stricken because the
    statement of facts lacks any record citations. Rule 2:6-2(a)(5) requires that an
    appellate brief contain "[a] concise statement of the facts material to the issues
    on appeal supported by references to the appendix and transcript." (emphasis
    added); see also R. 2:6-9 (providing that the court may suppress a brief that
    "does not substantially conform to these rules or is so inadequate that ju stice
    cannot be done without the court's independent examination of the record or
    research of the law"). Although plaintiffs' brief lacks record citations in the
    statement of facts, it is apparent that the statement of facts is adopted from
    plaintiff's complaint and Lori Vance's affidavit in opposition to summary
    judgment. Therefore, we decline to suppress plaintiffs' brief because we can
    address plaintiffs' arguments without conducting an extensive independent
    review of the record.
    A-2019-17T4
    12
    have been submitted at a trial had no malpractice occurred." Garcia v. Kozlov,
    Seaton, Romanini & Brooks, P.C., 
    179 N.J. 343
    , 358 (2004). "The 'suit within
    a suit' approach aims to clarify what would have taken place but for the
    attorney's malpractice." 
    Ibid. Courts, however, need
    not rigidly adhere to the "suit within a suit"
    paradigm; "flexibility [is] accorded to lawyers and judges to limn an appropriate
    procedure in each case based on the facts and on the claim." 
    Id. at 361.
    As in
    this case, "[a] flexible approach is particularly warranted in the more unusual
    cases where the aggrieved plaintiff in the malpractice action was the defendant
    in the original underlying action." Carbis Sales, Inc. v. Eisenberg, 397 N.J.
    Super. 64, 86 (App. Div. 2007) (citing Lieberman v. Employers Ins. of Wausau,
    
    84 N.J. 325
    , 343 (1980)). "[T]he measure of damages for legal malpractice in
    the defense of a client's cause is ordinarily fixed at the amount of the adverse
    judgment, or that portion thereof, that would not have been obtained against the
    client but for the attorney's negligence." 
    Id. at 85.
    Accordingly, in this case, plaintiffs were required to establish that had
    John Ambrosio raised the correct theory of fraud in the underlying
    Meadowbrook litigation, Meadowbrook's damages would have been reduced or
    Walker would have recovered on its counterclaims. See 
    id. at 85-86.
    In this
    A-2019-17T4
    13
    regard, plaintiffs primarily contend the APA would have been void from its
    inception due to Meadowbrook's fraudulent omission of its "pay-to-play" ban.
    As an initial matter, the record confirms that the Ambrosio defendants did
    not assert the argument that the APA was void from its inception based on
    Meadowbrook's fraudulent nondisclosure of its "pay-to-pay" restriction on
    taking on the State contracts. Rather, in opposing Meadowbrook's motion for
    summary judgment, the Ambrosio defendants primarily argued that the APA
    was unenforceable without prior approval from the DEP and that the closing
    memorandum was secured by fraud because Meadowbrook added terms without
    Lori Vance's knowledge. Similarly, on appeal, the Ambrosio defendants argued
    that "because the transfer of assets was not approved by the DEP, the contract
    is rendered illegal, against public policy, and is thus, unenforceable."
    Meadowbrook, slip op. at 7. The Ambrosio defendants did not raise plaintiffs'
    preferred theory of fraud in either instance.
    Thus, if plaintiffs' preferred theory of fraud would have been successful,
    the Ambrosio defendants may have breached their duty of care to plaintiff by
    failing to raise this argument. If the motion court found that the APA should be
    rescinded on the basis of fraud, then Meadowbrook would not have been able to
    enforce the APA and obtain damages against Walker in the underlying
    A-2019-17T4
    14
    Meadowbrook action. Accordingly, plaintiffs could recover damages in the
    instant malpractice action equal to the amount of the judgment entered in favor
    of Meadowbrook. See 
    Carbis, 397 N.J. Super. at 85
    . Additionally, had the court
    rescinded the APA, plaintiffs would not have been bound by the non-compete
    provision and may have been able to establish further damages on this basis.
    Alternatively, even if the court would not have voided the APA, Walker
    may still have recovered damages on its counterclaims in the Meadowbrook
    action based on Meadowbrook's fraudulent nondisclosure of the "pay-to-play"
    ban. Accordingly, in the instant malpractice action, plaintiffs would have been
    able to recover the amount of damages it would have received on its
    counterclaims in the underlying action.
    Thus, to determine whether plaintiffs' legal malpractice claim can survive
    summary judgment, we next consider whether plaintiffs have presented
    sufficient evidence to support that their preferred theory of fraud would have
    been successful in the Meadowbrook action.
    C.
    Plaintiffs assert that Meadowbrook committed legal or equitable fraud by
    failing to disclose that they were barred from taking on the state contracts due
    to a "pay-to-play" violation. "In order to prevail on a common law fraud claim,
    A-2019-17T4
    15
    plaintiff must show that defendant: (1) made a representation or omission of a
    material fact; (2) with knowledge of its falsity; (3) intending that the
    representation or omission be relied upon; (4) which resulted in reasonable
    reliance; and that (5) plaintiff suffered damages." DepoLink Court Reporting &
    Litig. Support Servs. v. Rochman, 
    430 N.J. Super. 325
    , 336 (App. Div. 2013)
    (citing Jewish Ctr. of Sussex Cnty. v. Whale, 
    86 N.J. 619
    , 624 (1981)).
    "Equitable fraud is similar to legal fraud; however, the plaintiff need not
    establish the defendant's scienter, that is, defendant's knowledge of the falsity
    and intent to obtain an undue advantage." 
    Ibid. "Fraud is not
    presumed; it must
    be proven through clear and convincing evidence." Stoecker v. Echevarria, 
    408 N.J. Super. 597
    , 617 (App. Div. 2009) (quoting Stochastic Decisions, Inc. v.
    DiDomenico, 
    236 N.J. Super. 388
    , 395 (App. Div. 1989)).
    "The law is well settled that equitable fraud provides a basis for a party to
    rescind a contract." First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Lawson, 
    177 N.J. 125
    , 136
    (2003); see also Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co. v. LaCroix, 
    194 N.J. 515
    , 527 (2008)
    ("Where a party has gained an unfair advantage by virtue of a fraudulent
    misrepresentation, and monetary damages alone will not satisfy the injury
    sustained by the aggrieved party, courts have looked to the equitable remedy of
    rescission to eliminate the damage."). However, "[i]n an action for equitable
    A-2019-17T4
    16
    fraud, the only relief that may be obtained is equitable relief, such as rescission
    or reformation of an agreement and not monetary damages." Daibo v. Kirsch,
    
    316 N.J. Super. 580
    , 591-92 (App. Div. 1998) (quoting Enright v. Lubow, 
    202 N.J. Super. 58
    , 72 (App. Div. 1985)).
    In this case, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and
    granting all inferences in their favor, plaintiffs have presented sufficient
    evidence to establish a prima facie case of legal or equitable fraud in the
    underlying Meadowbrook action.
    As to the first element, that Meadowbrook made a material omission, Lori
    Vance affirms that she would not have entered into the APA had she known that
    Meadowbrook was banned from performing the State contracts. She also asserts
    that Walker was forced to spend substantial funds to enable it to continue to
    service the State contracts, despite already selling a majority of its physical
    assets of Meadowbrook. From this evidence, a reasonable jury could find that
    Meadowbrook's omission of the fact that Meadowbrook was barred from
    performing the State contracts was material to plaintiffs' decision to enter into
    the APA.4
    4
    Defendants point out that after Meadowbrook's disclosure of the "pay-to-play"
    ban, Lori Vance acknowledged that "the contracts between [Plaintiffs] and the
    A-2019-17T4
    17
    As to the second and third elements, which are not required for equitable
    fraud, plaintiffs present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer that
    Meadowbrook was aware that the "pay-to-play" ban was material to the
    transaction and that plaintiffs would rely on the nondisclosure of the ban. In
    this respect, Lori Vance affirms that Meadowbrook's principal informed her that
    "four days prior to the closing, Meadowbrook received a letter from the State of
    New Jersey reiterating that . . . Meadowbrook was banned from performing
    contracts with the State of New Jersey." Moreover, Meadowbrook's principal
    had been banned from servicing State contracts for a number of years prior to
    the negotiation of the APA. Meadowbrook's principal, however, did not disclose
    the ban until approximately five days after the closing. From these facts, a
    reasonable jury could infer that Meadowbrook's principal possessed scienter –
    that he knew Meadowbrook would not be able to perform the State contracts and
    intended that Walker would rely on his omission of the "pay-to-play" ban.
    As to the fourth element, that plaintiffs reasonably relied on
    Meadowbrook's omission, a reasonable jury could infer that plaintiffs justifiably
    State Parks have been salvaged and continue to be serviced by [Plaintiffs] since
    Meadowbrook is barred from doing so." Nonetheless, this admission would not
    prevent a reasonable jury from inferring that plaintiffs would not have agreed to
    the APA had Meadowbrook initially disclosed the "pay-to-play" ban.
    A-2019-17T4
    18
    expected that Meadowbrook would service the State contracts pursuant to the
    APA. Reliance must be actual and justifiable under the circumstances. See
    Walid v. Yolanda for Irene Couture, 
    425 N.J. Super. 171
    , 181 (App. Div. 2012).
    In general, a party is not required to conduct an independent investigation to
    uncover a fraudulent misrepresentation or omission. See 
    id. at 181-84.
    Indeed,
    "[o]ne who engages in fraud . . . may not urge that one's victim should have been
    more circumspect or astute." Jewish 
    Ctr., 86 N.J. at 626
    n.1.
    Relevant to reasonable reliance, Lori Vance affirms that she informed
    Meadowbrook that Walker's business activities included significant State
    contracts and that Meadowbrook induced her to enter into the APA by
    fraudulently omitting that Meadowbrook was banned from performing the State
    contracts. Contrary to their position in the underlying litigation, the Ambrosio
    defendants now suggest that plaintiffs' reliance was unreasonable because
    Walker failed to seek DEP approval for the transaction. However, the record
    does not establish that plaintiffs would have uncovered the "pay-to-play" issue
    had they sought DEP approval for the transaction.        In this regard, further
    discovery may substantiate plaintiff's claims that they reasonably relied on
    Meadowbrook's omission of the "pay-to-play" ban. Thus, viewing the evidence
    in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, a reasonable jury could infer that
    A-2019-17T4
    19
    plaintiffs' reliance on Meadowbrook's nondisclosure of the "pay-to-play" ban
    was reasonable under the circumstances.
    Finally, plaintiffs present sufficient evidence to support that they were
    damaged by entering into the APA without knowledge that Meadowbrook would
    be able to perform the State contracts. In this regard, Lori Vance affirms: (1)
    Walker was forced to spend substantial funds to continue to service the State
    contracts despite already selling a majority of its physical assets of
    Meadowbrook; (2) Walker filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy as a result of
    Meadowbrook settling Walker's debts for less than the amount owed and
    Meadowbrook's inability to service the State contracts; (3) Lori and Michael
    Vance were prevented from finding other employment in the waste-collection
    industry because of the non-compete provision of the APA; and (4) Walker "lost
    the commissions on the transferred customers, which [is estimated] to be in
    excess of $1,183,000 as of the end of 2017."
    Depending on the extent of these costs, the motion court may have found
    that the appropriate remedy was rescission of the APA. See Rutgers Cas. Ins.
    A-2019-17T4
    20
    
    Co., 194 N.J. at 527-29
    . Alternatively, plaintiffs may have recovered damages
    based on legal fraud on their counterclaims in the Meadowbrook action.5
    Thus, plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to support that their
    preferred theory of fraud may have been successful. We therefore conclude that
    the trial court improvidently granted summary judgment and dismissed
    plaintiffs' legal malpractice claim.
    D.
    Although the trial court did not address this point, the Ambrosio
    defendants also argue that summary judgment was properly granted because
    plaintiffs were barred from arguing their preferred theory of fraud by the
    doctrine of unclean hands. We reject this argument.
    In Meadowbrook, this court determined that the doctrine of unclean hands
    barred Walker from arguing that the APA should be declared illegal because the
    parties failed to obtain DEP approval for the transaction. Meadowbrook, (slip
    op. at 11). In this regard, we reasoned "having failed to discharge its obligation
    to comply with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 48:3-7(c)(1), Walker seeks to
    5
    The Ambrosio defendants note that plaintiffs admitted that Walker was
    insolvent prior to learning of the "pay-to-play" ban and could not cover basic
    operating costs. Defendants contend that all of the damages claimed by
    plaintiffs resulted from Walker's pre-existing insolvency. This issue, however,
    is a factual dispute that should not be resolved on summary judgment.
    A-2019-17T4
    21
    exploit that failure, arguing that the APA should be declared illegal,
    unenforceable and against public policy precisely because there was no
    compliance with that statute." 
    Id. at 10.
    In this respect, our holding in Meadowbrook only applied the doctrine of
    unclean hands to bar the specific argument that the contract was rendered illegal
    by the failure to obtain DEP approval. By contrast, in this case, plaintiffs
    advance the theory the APA was void from its inception due to Meadowbrook's
    fraudulent omission of the "pay-to-play" ban.         Although the Ambrosio
    defendants argue that plaintiffs engaged in inequitable conduct in failing to
    obtain DEP approval, the record does not establish that plaintiffs would have
    uncovered the "pay-to-play" issue had they sought DEP approval for the
    transaction.   On the record before us, therefore, we cannot conclude that
    plaintiffs would have been barred from arguing that Meadowbrook committed
    legal or equitable fraud by the doctrine of unclean hands.
    E.
    In conclusion, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
    plaintiffs, we find that plaintiffs have presented a prima facie claim of legal
    malpractice and find that the trial court improvidently granted summary
    judgment.
    A-2019-17T4
    22
    Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.   We do not retain
    jurisdiction.
    A-2019-17T4
    23