STRATEGIC RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ORANGE KEY REALTY, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

STRATEGIC RESOURCE

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ORANGE KEY REALTY, LLC,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

December 30, 2016

Submitted December 6, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Espinosa and Suter.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. SC-0857-15.

D. Richard Tonge, agent pro se for appellant.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from a final decision of the Special Civil Part that awarded a judgment in its favor. We affirm.

The complaint filed by plaintiff alleged

Plaintiff was hired as an independent contractor to recruit real estate agents for the Defendant. The terms of the agreement between Orange Key Realty, LLC (Defendant) and Strategic Resource Development Corporation (Plaintiff) were: $200 for recruitment of an experienced agent when they came on board and $400 when they closed on their first deal. $200 was paid to Plaintiff in August 2014 when the experienced agent came on board. Defendant has refused to pay Plaintiff for the second half of the commission relating to a closing on a real estate deal from that same experienced agent when they closed on their first deal in April 2015.

The complaint demanded $400 in damages plus costs.

At trial, Eileen Tonge, plaintiff's vice-president, testified she was hired by Orange Key Realty, LLC (Orange Key) as a business developing coordinator, "to recruit, do press releases and whatever." She stated her agreement with defendant was that she would receive $14 per hour for doing her daily job for twenty hours a week and receive a commission of $500 for each agent she brought in - $100 up front and the balance when the agent had his or her "first actual closing." She stated she was owed $800 as the second installments of her commission that became due when two agents she recruited made their first closings after she retired.

Michael Matthews, one of the owners of Orange Key, denied that the plaintiff corporation was employed by defendant. He stated a position was created for Tonge but that her services diminished. He stated there was no contract with her regarding the bonus money she claimed and that there had never been a contract, that it was "simply, out of the kindness of our hearts" that she was given a bonus "if a new agent came in." He distinguished between a bonus, given for doing a good job, and a commission, given as a matter of entitlement, and stated Tonge was always paid bonuses, not commissions. He identified the two transactions at issue in the case as handled by Rose "Marose" and Patrick "Enfonte." He stated Rose did not actually handle her closing and Patrick moved after his closing.

The trial judge noted the difficulty in interpreting a verbal agreement to determine its terms. He determined that an agreement existed between the parties in which plaintiff would be paid a commission of "$100 when a new agent came in and $400 when the new agent had their first closing." As for the two transactions, the judge found Tonge was owed the second installment for the closing handled by Patrick Enfonte but was not owed any additional sum for the closing that Rose Marose did not handle. Judgment was entered in the amount of $442 plus costs.

In this appeal, plaintiff argues defendant failed to produce legally subpoenaed information for trial and asks that we remand to the Special Civil Part for a new trial at which defendant would be compelled to produce the subpoenaed information and the court might decide the merits of an additional award to her. Tonge did not request this relief at trial and did not object to the matter proceeding to trial.

Because the trial judge's findings here were based upon substantial credible evidence in the record, we find no cause to disturb the judgment in this case. See Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150, 169 (2011).

Affirmed.