Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4522-12T4
04-17-2015
CHARLES FAIRCHILD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRANBURY DESIGN CENTER and FRANK O'LEARY, Defendants-Respondents.
Charles Fairchild, appellant pro se. Barry, McTiernan & Wedinger, P.C., attorneys for respondents (Laurel A. Wedinger and Richard W. Wedinger, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fisher and Nugent. On appeal from the Superior Court of Mercer County, Law Division, Docket No. L-1700-08. Charles Fairchild, appellant pro se. Barry, McTiernan & Wedinger, P.C., attorneys for respondents (Laurel A. Wedinger and Richard W. Wedinger, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Charles Fairfield, in his individual capacity and as administrator of the estate of his late mother, Blanka Hall, commenced this action against defendants Cranbury Design Center, Frank O'Leary, who is a principal of Cranbury Design, and others. The complaint alleged numerous causes of action and theories of recovery, including a claim based on the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -195, concerning a 2002 contract between Blanka Hall and Cranbury Design to partially renovate and erect an addition to her home in East Windsor.
At the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial judge made findings of fact regarding the circumstances surrounding the construction and the credibility of the parties and witnesses. He determined that although plaintiff demonstrated a number of "technical CFA violation[s]," that an ascertainable loss was shown with respect to only one deviation, namely defendant's failure to install a radon vent. The judge concluded that the damages so caused amounted to $758, which would be trebled, but that plaintiff was entitled to no further damages because of the lack of proof of an ascertainable loss on those other items. Following additional proceedings regarding plaintiff's claim of attorneys' fees, final judgment was entered in plaintiff's favor in the total amount of $11,500. This award consisted of $2250, i.e., the trebled $750 compensatory award, as well as $8500 in attorneys' fees and $750 in costs. Deeming this disposition to be insufficient, plaintiff appeals, arguing:
For example, the judge found plaintiff credible but that he was unable — because he was not present — to rebut the accuracy or content of discussions that occurred between those involved in the construction and Blanka Hall. In addition, the judge found defendant O'Leary to be "very credible" with regard to his discussions with Mrs. Hall and otherwise. The judge also found the "battle of the experts" was not even close and that defendants' expert's credentials, and the content of his testimony, "far outweighed" plaintiff's expert.
There is no explanation for the difference between the judge's oral decision and the judgment on the amount of compensatory damages.
--------
I. [THE TRIAL JUDGE] MISREPRESENTED MY TESTIMONY REGARDING MY MOTHER THEREBY SHOWING FAVORATISM AND COVER-UP.
II. ORA CONSTRUCTION OFFICIAL TERENCE LUCKIE LIED UNDER OATH AND HIS MARCH 11, 2010 LETTER IS A FALSE DOCUMENT.
III. [THE TRIAL JUDGE] MISCHARACTERIZED ASCERTAINABLE LOSS THEREBY CREATING HARMFUL ERROR.
IV. UNCONSCIONABLE COMMERCIAL PRACTICES EXPOSES ASCERTAINABLE LOSS.
V. [THE TRIAL JUDGE] DETERMINED THERE WERE TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS BUT THEY DID NOT INCLUDE ASCERTAINABLE LOSS.
VI. THE NARRATIVE OF HOW FRAUD AND CORRUPTION WAS EXPOSED.
VII. [THE TRIAL JUDGE] MISREPRESENTED MY TESTIMONY.
VIII. SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE - FRANK O'LEARY AND PETER ENGEL COMMITTED PERJURY REGARDING THE CONDITION OF THE NEW ADDITION FLOOR - THE FLOOR IS A DEFECTIVE INSTALLATION.
IX. [DEFENSE COUNSEL] VIOLATED THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BY ALLOWING PETER ENGEL TO PROVIDE A KNOWINGLY FALSE REPORT AND ALLOWING MR. ENGEL AND FRANK O'LEARY TO LIE UNDER OATH.
X. FRANK O'LEARY AND PETER ENGEL COMMITTED PERJURY REGARDING THE CONDITION OF THE SLIDING BACK DOOR.In a reply brief, plaintiff argues:
XI. [THE TRIAL JUDGE] IMPROPERLY WEIGHTED WHAT HE CALLED TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS - THEY WERE MANIFESTATIONS OF A CONSPIRACY.
XII. [THE TRIAL JUDGE] KNEW STANLEY RODEFELD LIED AT TRIAL.
XIII. [THE TRIAL JUDGE] IMPROPERLY REMOVED STANLEY RODEFELD'S DEPOSITION FROM EVIDENCE.
XIV. [THE TRIAL JUDGE] KNEW THAT VIOLATIONS OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED BY THE TOWNSHIP.
XV. [THE TRIAL JUDGE] KNEW [DEFENSE COUNSEL] HAD REPEATEDLY VIOLATED THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
XVI. [THE TRIAL JUDGE] SHOWED BIAS THEREBY CREATING HARMFUL ERROR.
XVII. [THE TRIAL JUDGE] SELECTIVELY ENFORCED COURT RULES.
XVIII. DISREGARD FOR THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BY THE MERCER VICINAGE.
XIX. DISREGARD FOR THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BY THE APPELLATE COURT.
XX. THE MERCER VICINAGE ASSIGNMENT JUDGE DOES NOT ENFORCE THE RULES, POLICIES AND DIRECTIVES OF THE SUPREME COURT.
XXI. EVERYTHING [CRANBURY DESIGN] DID OR WAS ASSOCIATED WITH WAS DECEPTIVE.
To the extent these arguments address the merits of the case and the factual findings made by the trial judge, after close examination of the record we find insufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Appellate courts are obligated to defer to a trial judge's factual findings. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). Because plaintiff has provided no reason for our intervention, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the able trial judge's comprehensive and well-reasoned decision.
We further add only that many of plaintiff's arguments, particularly those contained in the reply brief, are not properly before us. Should plaintiff legitimately believe there were violations of either the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Code of Judicial Conduct, other forums are available for their consideration. Notwithstanding, based on our examination of the record, we find plaintiff's contentions to be ill-reasoned, scurrilous and unworthy of further discussion.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION