JEFFREY CLIFFORD VS. CLIFTON COLFAX AUTO MALL (DC-000348-19, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2126-19
JEFFREY CLIFFORD,
KIMBERLEE CLIFFORD,
and OWEN CLIFFORD,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
CLIFTON COLFAX AUTO
MALL, LLC,
and MAHER KOUR,
Defendants-Appellants
and
RLI INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
___________________________
Submitted January 19, 2020 – Decided February 8, 2021
Before Judges Sabatino and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. DC-
000348-19.
De Marco & De Marco, attorneys for appellants
Clifton Colfax Auto Mall, LLC and Maher Kour
(Michael P. De Marco, on the briefs).
Richard A. Vrhovc, attorney for respondents (Richard
A. Vrhovc, on the briefs).
PER CURIAM
After a three-day bench trial in the Special Civil Part, the trial judge found
defendants had violated the Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -
20, in connection with their sale of a used 2004 Mazda Miata to plaintiffs. The
judge awarded treble damages to plaintiffs, plus counsel fees. Defendants now
appeal. We affirm.
The proofs showed that defendants 1 Clifton Colfax Auto Mall, LLC and
Maher Kour advertised the car on Craigslist, without initially revealing they
operated a used car dealership. Plaintiffs Jeffrey Clifford, Kimberlee Clifford,
and Owen Clifford are family members who live in Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania. They responded to the posting and asked about the car. Because
they had a bad experience in the past with a rusted vehicle, they specifically
1
RLI Insurance Company, which was named as a co-defendant in the lawsuit
because it had issued a bond relating to the transaction, ultimately was dismissed
from the appeal.
A-2126-19
2
asked defendants if the car had rust, and defendant Kour responded by text
message that the car had "no rust on it."
Encouraged by this, plaintiffs drove over three hours from central
Pennsylvania to defendants' dealership in North Jersey and looked at the car.
They did not see the undercarriage of the car because it was low to the ground
and was not on a lift. They agreed to make the purchase on the spot.
Plaintiffs paid defendants $7,998 for the car and took it back home to
Pennsylvania. When they got there, they noticed the tires were deflated, so they
brought it to a Firestone repair shop. Once the car was put on a lift at Firestone,
it was discovered to have massive rust underneath, making the car unsuitable to
pass inspection. To mitigate their damages, plaintiffs sold the car to Owen
Clifford's co-worker for $4,500, which was not documented but explained in
Owen's testimony.
After considering written summations, the judge issued an opinion finding
that defendants violated the CFA by making false representations that the car
was rust-free. The judge awarded plaintiff net damages of $4,688.44, which,
when trebled pursuant to N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 amounted to $14,065.32, plus
attorneys' fees of $17,125.82.
A-2126-19
3
On appeal, the defense argues the liability findings were against the
weight of the evidence and that the trial court failed to provide adequate reasons
for the damages award and the fee award. We disagree.
Our scope of review of the trial court's decision in this non-jury matter is
limited. An appellate court shall "not disturb the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the trial judge unless [it is] convinced that they are so manifestly
unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably
credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice[.]" Seidman v. Clifton
Sav. Bank, 205 N.J. 150, 169 (2011) (quoting In re Trust Created by Agreement
Dated December 20, 1961, 194 N.J. 276, 284 (2008)); see also Anderson v. City
of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985) (noting the trial court's "major role
is the determination of fact"); Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of
Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). We only review de novo the trial court's legal
determinations. 30 River Court E. Urban Renewal Co. v. Capograsso, 383 N.J.
Super. 470, 476 (App. Div. 2006) (citing Rova Farms, 65 N.J. at 483-84).
In conducting our review, we take particular note that the trial judge found
the testimony of the three plaintiffs generally more credible and persuasive than
that of defendant Kour. These first-hand credibility assessments deserve our
deference. We bear this in mind as we turn to the legal issues.
A-2126-19
4
The law under the CFA that applies to this car sale is well established.
The CFA makes the following acts unlawful, in connection with the sale or
advertisement of merchandise or real estate:
The act, use or employment by any person of any
unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud,
false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the
knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any
material fact with intent that others rely upon such
concealment, suppression or omission, in connection
with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or
real estate, or with the subsequent performance of such
person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has in
fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is
declared to be an unlawful practice . . . .
[N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 (emphasis added).]
Unlike the elements of a common law fraud claim, the CFA does not
require the plaintiff to have reasonably relied on the misrepresentation or that
the defendant have knowledge or belief of the statement's falsity. Cf. Jewish
Ctr. of Sussex Cnty. v. Whale, 86 N.J. 619, 624 (1981) (citations omitted)
(outlining the five elements required to prevail on a common law fraud claim).
Violations of the CFA can arise under three different categories: (1) "[a]n
affirmative misrepresentation, even if unaccompanied by knowledge of its
falsity or an intention to deceive"; (2) "[a]n omission or failure to disclose a
material fact, if accompanied by knowledge and intent"; and (3) "violations of
A-2126-19
5
specific regulations promulgated under the [CFA]," which are reviewed under
strict liability. Monogram Credit Card Bank of Ga. v. Tennesen, 390 N.J. Super.
123, 133 (App. Div. 2007) (third alteration in original) (emphasis added)
(citations omitted). The first category applies here.
An affirmative misrepresentation in the context of the CFA is "one which
is material to the transaction and which is a statement of fact, found to be false,
made to induce the buyer to make the purchase." Gennari v. Weichert Co.
Realtors, 288 N.J. Super. 504, 535 (App. Div. 1996) (emphasis added), aff'd,
148 N.J. 582 (1997). A showing of mere inducement is sufficient . Reasonable
reliance by a plaintiff—although it appears palpable in this record—does not
have to be demonstrated to prevail on a CFA claim.
Defendants contend their "no rust" representation to plaintiffs was not
material to the sale of the Miata. The trial judge soundly rejected this
contention.
A statement is material under New Jersey law if:
(a) a reasonable person would attach importance to its
existence in determining a choice of action . . . ; or (b)
the maker of the representation knows or has reason to
know that its recipient regards or is likely to regard the
matter as important in determining his choice of action,
although a reasonable man would not so regard it.
A-2126-19
6
[Ji v. Palmer, 333 N.J. Super. 451, 462 (App. Div.
2000) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts §
538(2) (1977)).]
The trial court judge correctly applied this concept of materiality in her
written post-trial decision:
This Court finds that Mr. Kour's statement in the text
message "no rust" was a material misrepresentation of
fact, relied upon by the [p]laintiffs, found to be false
and was made to induce the buyer to come to New
Jersey to make the purchase. Mr. Kour was the person
who set up the advertisement, using his personal cell
phone number and who either responded to the texts or
directed his sons to respond at his direction. This Court
believes that he was unaware that there was rust on the
underside of the vehicle as this Court believes he never
actually looked. Nevertheless, the Court can still find
that he violated the CFA and does so.
[(Emphasis added).]
The court's finding is well supported, and we affirm it.
The untrue representation was clearly intended to induce plaintiffs to go
from Pennsylvania to Northern New Jersey to buy this car. Defendants are in
the business of selling cars and sell between seventy-five and one hundred of
them each year. They advertise their cars on Craigslist by putting Kour's
personal cell phone number on the internet. Kour's contention that his response
to Owen's inquiry about rust was not intended to encourage Owen's family to
buy the car is untenable.
A-2126-19
7
The "as is" provision in the sale contract did not waive these consumers'
statutory rights under the CFA. Nor did it matter that plaintiffs allegedly
declined a seller's warranty for $200.
Next, we are satisfied the court reasonably determined the amount of
damages, as illuminated by the written Addendum the judge issued after her
original decision on liability.
In order to have standing to sue under the CFA, a consumer must prove
an "ascertainable loss of moneys or property." N.J.S.A. 56:8-19; see also Laufer
v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 385 N.J. Super. 172, 186 (App. Div. 2006). "The
ascertainable loss requirement operates as an integral check upon the balance
struck by the CFA between the consuming public and sellers of goods."
Thiedemann v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 183 N.J. 234, 251 (2005).
The loss does not have to have been paid out of pocket by the consumer,
although it must be "quantifiable or measurable." Ibid. "An 'estimate of
damages, calculated within a reasonable degree of certainty,' will suffice . . . ."
Id. at 249 (quoting Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2, 22 (1994)). As the
Court explained in Thiedemann, "either out-of-pocket loss or a demonstration
of loss in value will suffice to meet the ascertainable loss hurdle and will set the
stage for establishing the measure of damages." Id. at 248 (emphasis added).
A-2126-19
8
Although plaintiffs did not present expert testimony as to the fair market
value of the Miata at the time of its resale, Owen testified that he conducted
research as to the value of the vehicle before selling it to his co-worker. The
sum of $4,500, more than half the sales price, appears to be a reasonable price
for a rusted used car that apparently could not be registered to drive in
Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs manifestly acted with due diligence in mitigating
damages. See Premier XXI Claims Management v. Rigstad, 381 N.J. Super.
281, 284-86 (App. Div. 2005). The damages were rationally calculated.
Lastly, we adopt the trial court's award of reasonable counsel fees to
plaintiffs pursuant to N.J.S.A. 56:8-19. Our scope of review of such counsel fee
awards is deferential. See, e.g., Litton Indus., Inc. v. IMO Indus., Inc., 200 N.J.
372, 386 (2009) (noting the deference owed on appeal in reviewing a trial court's
fee awards); Packard-Bamberger & Co., Inc. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427, 444 (2001)
(same). The amount of fees shifted need not be proportional to the amount of
damages awarded. Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 182 N.J. 1, 23 (2004). We
are satisfied the court's calculation of fees was not overly generous, and that the
risks of litigation and the degree of success obtained were especially taken into
account.
A-2126-19
9
All other points raised on appeal lack sufficient merit to be worthy of
discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-2126-19
10