Holtham v. Lucas, 460 N.J. Super. 308 (App. Div. 2019). As Judge Ostrer noted in the first sentence of his opinion in this case today, “[a]ccording to well-settled contract law, a provision that stipulates an unreasonably large amount of damages for a future breach is an unenforceable penalty.” The parties to this matrimonial case entered into a marital settlement agreement that contained a “per diem penalty of $150” for any breach of any duty under that agreement. When plaintiff failed to timely pay off a loan on a car that was to be distributed to his (ex-)wife and...

Goldfarb v. Solimine, 460 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 2019). Everyone has their favorite judge(s) before whom they would prefer to try a case. In this case, “a defense attorney, in an ex parte communication, sought [a particular] judge’s assignment to the case, and the judge responded by specifically requesting the assignment from the presiding judge.” The requesting judge, a longtime member of the bench, got the assignment. Plaintiff learned of these events and sought to recuse the judge. Recusal was denied. After trial, plaintiff appealed, renewing his argument on that...

In the last several weeks, this blog has largely focused on Supreme Court decisions and grants of review. That was not meant to slight the Appellate Division, whose judges have made some important rulings as well. Here are summaries of some of the most significant published rulings of the Appellate Division during that period: Sosa v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., 458 N.J. Super. 639 (App. Div. 2019). In an opinion by Judge Ostrer that focused on the language and effect of a water damage exclusion in the subject homeowner’s insurance policy, the Appellate Division reversed a summary...