Appellate Division Clarifies Standards for Electronic Service, Affiant’s Personal Knowledge Requirement, and Quiet Title Actions
Nolasco v. Estate of Nolasco, Docket No. A-3176-22, 2024 WL 4563243 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Oct. 24, 2024)
This matter concerns a quiet title claim brought against the estate (“Estate”) of Otilio Nolasco (“Otilio” or “decedent”) by plaintiff Jose Nolasco (“Jose”) concerning real estate in North Plainfield, New Jersey. The Estate appealed two orders: (1) granting summary judgment to Jose declaring him the record owner of the subject property and requiring the Estate to convey the property; and (2) denying the Estate’s motion for reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed.
RELEVANT FACTS
The North Plainfield property was purchased in December 2016. The decedent was Jose’s uncle. Jose asked his uncle for assistance in purchasing the property due to poor credit. His uncle agreed and assisted by obtaining financing and becoming the sole titleholder. Jose proceeded to make all payments associated with the property, including the initial deposit and all mortgage payments. Other than the initial funds used to purchase the property, Jose made all payments by depositing money into a joint bank account he held with the decedent. The decedent never lived at the property and maintained a separate residence.
TRIAL COURT
Following Otilio’s death in 2021, Jose filed a quiet title action seeking a determination as to his ownership of the property. The Estate opposed and counterclaimed, arguing the property was never gifted to Jose by Otilio and was otherwise rightfully an asset of Otilio’s Estate.
Jose moved for summary judgment. Jose’s motion was filed electronically via Judiciary Electronic Document Submission (JEDS). Electronic notice of the filing was sent to the email addresses of three individuals at the Estate counsel’s firm. The Estate, however, failed to oppose the motion and the court granted the unopposed motion. The trial court found Jose made all payments for the property, Otilio never lived at the property, and Otilio was named on the deed solely to secure financing. Accordingly, the court ruled that Jose was the fee simple owner of the property and ordered the executor of the Estate “to execute all necessary documents to ensure that the deed for the [p]roperty is in the name of [Jose].” Id. at p. 4.
The Estate filed for reconsideration of the decision, arguing it was not properly served with the motion. The Estate also presented new evidence including checks allegedly showing that Otilio paid the down payment and closing costs for the purchase of the property. The new evidence was presented to the court through a certification made by the Estate’s executor. Jose disputed this contention, asserting all the costs were made through his own funds, which were transferred to his uncle for the purchase.
In denying the reconsideration motion, the court found the executor lacked personal knowledge as to the real estate transaction and her certified statements were “unsupported hearsay.” Id. at p. 15.
APPELLATE DIVISION
The Appellate Division reviewed the summary judgment decision de novo and the reconsideration motion for abuse of discretion. In affirming both rulings, the two-judge panel held:
- The summary judgment motion was properly served via JEDS, which constitutes effective service pursuant to R. 1:5-2. The appeals court specifically found that electronic notice was sent to three email addresses associated with the Estate’s counsel’s law firm, Estate counsel did not dispute notice was sent to email addresses with his firm, and the record confirmed that that current counsel was the attorney of record at the time of the motion.
- No genuine issues of material fact warranting the denial of the summary judgment or the reconsideration application were presented. In particular, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court that the executor’s certification failed to present personal knowledge of facts, as required by R. 1:6-6, regarding certain payments purportedly made toward the property around the time of purchase. The appellate court also reviewed two checks attached to the certification and separately found that one was in part illegible and therefore the court could not discern whether it is was what the executor “claim[ed] it to be” and the other check did “not show that it came from Otilio’s account.” Id. p. 17.
- Jose met the requirements to quiet title under N.J.S.A. § 2A:62-1. From the evidence presented, the court found Jose established his claim of ownership based on his payments towards the property, including all mortgage payments, and sole and exclusive possession of the property since purchase.
CONCLUSION
In affirming the trial court’s decisions, the Appellate Division clarified the standards for electronic service under R. 1:5-2, the personal knowledge requirement of affiants under R. 1:6-6, and quiet title actions under N.J.S.A. § 2A:62-1.