Preview:

a2802-05.opn.html

Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) Original Wordprocessor Version

This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*. (NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2802-05T12802-05T1 GREGORY ELRAMOUZ, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MANOLO V. ADMANA, Defendant-Appellant, and TERESITA YAN ADMANA, Defendant. ___________________________________ Argued November 29, 2006 - Decided January 11, 2007 Before Judges Wefing and Messano. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division - Special Civil Part, Hudson County, No. LT-008607-05. Alexander W. Booth argued the cause for appellant Manolo V. Admana (Brownstein Booth & Associates, attorneys; Mr. Booth, of counsel and on the brief). John P. O'Toole argued the cause for respondent (Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, attorneys; Mr. O'Toole,

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2802-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:34:48 PM]

a2802-05.opn.html

on the brief). Defendant Teresita Yan Admana did not participate in this appeal. PER CURIAM Defendant Manolo Admana appeals from a trial court order denying his motion for reconsideration. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we dismiss the appeal as moot. Defendant Admana and his wife, defendant Teresita, rented a house located at 650 Westside Avenue from plaintiff at a monthly rental of $1,625. Plaintiff asserts that he purchased the house from defendants in April 2004. The sparse record contains no testimony on that issue and whether defendants' financial condition at that time compelled them to sell the house to plaintiff. In any event, defendants' lease for the house was executed in April 2004. The parties also executed an "Option and Sale Agreement" under which plaintiff granted to defendants an option to purchase the house within three years for $236,000. The option agreement contained the following provision: The Optionee [defendants], in consideration of entering into a leasehold agreement with the Optionor [plaintiff] for a term of three (3) year(s), agrees that this option agreement is contingent and conditioned upon Optionee's faithful performance under the terms and conditions of the underlying lease. Should the Optionee default under the terms and conditions of the underlying lease or should the underlying lease be terminated for any reasons whatsoever, the option agreement shall also simultaneously terminate. The option is not assignable by the Optionee. (Copy of underlying lease is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B.) At some point, defendants fell behind in their rental payments, and plaintiff commenced a summary dispossess action. Before us, defendant Manolo Admana attributes the responsibility for this to his now-estranged wife, Teresita, who has not participated in this appeal. Eventually a judgment for possession was entered in plaintiff's favor and a warrant for removal issued. Defendant then sought an order to show cause why the warrant for removal should not be executed. The parties appeared before the trial court on August 10, 2005 in connection with that order to show cause and, after extensive negotiations, placed a settlement upon the record. That, unfortunately, did not conclude matters between the parties. Plaintiff filed a certification in September in which he sought to enforce the settlement. The parties appeared before the trial court on October 11, at which time they disputed whether defendant was obligated to pay late fees and counsel fees, as well as the manner in which he could exercise the option to purchase. Plaintiff, despite the fact that his certification had been captioned as seeking to enforce the settlement, sought possession, rather than the disputed sums. After extensive argument as to the parties' respective positions, the trial court found for plaintiff. Defendant then filed a motion for

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2802-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:34:48 PM]

a2802-05.opn.html

reconsideration, which was heard in December. Defendant appeals from the denial of that motion. According to the record, the warrant for possession has been executed and defendant removed from the premises. At oral argument, we were informed that not only has defendant been removed but that the premises have since been sold to a third party. In this posture, we deem this dispute to be moot. It is apparent from the oral argument before this court that the object of this appeal is not to regain possession of the premises but to obtain a decision that defendant may use in connection with another suit, in which he would contend that he was wrongfully deprived of his right to exercise the option to purchase the premises. We decline to enter that potential fray. If defendant wishes to litigate that issue, he is free to do so, and nothing within this decision forecasts any views on the merits of that question. The appeal is dismissed.

(continued) (continued) 4 A-2802-05T1 January 11, 2007 0x01 graphic

This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden. This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2802-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:34:48 PM]



Download a2802-05.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law