BRADSTREET PERSONNEL GROUP, INC., et al. v. WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LEASING, INC., et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5943-04T55943-04T5

BRADSTREET PERSONNEL GROUP, INC.,

PETERPAUL, CLARK & CORCORAN, P.C.,

CHURCH OF ST. DAVID THE KING, and

BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF UNION COUNTY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LEASING, INC.

and WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL, INC.,

Defendants-Respondents.

______________________________________

 

Submitted: May 9, 2006 - Decided May 26, 2006

Before Judges Kestin, Lefelt and Seltzer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Civil Part, Bergen County, L-3212-03.

Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, attorneys for appellants (Steven L. Wittels, on the brief).

Graham, Curtin & Sheridan, attorneys for respondents (Thomas R. Curtin and Kathleen N. Fennelly, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint. The order also denied, without prejudice as moot, plaintiffs' motion for class certification. See R. 4:32.

The case involves the validity of a standard clause in an office equipment lease, which plaintiffs contend was misleading as to the duration of the lease, the lease's end date, and the "window of opportunity for the lessee to send a notice of lease termination." We have analyzed the record in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties and prevailing legal standards, and are substantially in agreement with Judge Jonathan N. Harris's conclusions that the clause at issue was clear and valid, and that its manifest purport governed the rights of the parties.

The trial court was correct to reject the proffered testimony from plaintiffs' expert witness, not only on net opinion grounds, but also because the question whether the terms of a contract are clear and enforceable is one of law, not fact. See Schor v. FMS Financial Corp., 357 N.J. Super. 185, 191 (App. Div. 2002). A party may not offer expert opinion on an issue of law. See Healy v. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., 287 N.J. Super. 407, 413, certif. denied, 145 N.J. 372, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1007, 117 S. Ct. 510, 136 L. Ed. 2d 399 (1996).

The remaining arguments advanced by plaintiffs are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5943-04T5

May 26, 2006