PAULINE LANG v. DANIEL Y. DENG

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2466-04T32466-04T3

PAULINE LANG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DANIEL Y. DENG,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________________________

 

Argued November 10, 2005 - Decided January 10, 2006

Before Judges Stern and Fall.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County,

Docket No. L-8413-03.

Laurence H. Olive argued the cause for

appellant.

Weicheng Wang argued the cause for

respondent.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of December 13, 2004 dismissing her complaint with prejudice after a bench trial. In her amended complaint, plaintiff sought the return of money, totaling $55,000, that she allegedly lent to defendant during the period of their relationship, which the judge found to constitute gifts. Plaintiff argues that "unjust enrichment was proven," "the due date of these loans has been established or is implied by law," "the defendant breached the confidentiality condition of the gifts and loans," and "the transfers totaling $40,000.00 were solicited by defendant."

The parties were classmates in China who developed a romantic relationship after reuniting in New Jersey. Plaintiff, who was married, gave defendant $10,000 in December 1998, $5,000 in April 1999, and $20,000 in August and again in September 1999. Plaintiff subsequently demanded repayment of the funds after she learned that defendant also had a relationship with another woman and had not terminated it, as he had promised to do, and the parties' relationship was permanently ended.

Defendant testified that the $5,000 check was given to him because of the expenses of moving from Woodbridge to New Milford and that the other checks were given in light of the relationship which plaintiff enjoyed, because she said she "loved" him, and did not need the money. Defendant never thought he was obligated to return the money.

Plaintiff argues that the first two payments of $10,000 and $5,000 were "conditional gifts" premised on the condition of non-disclosure of the payments and of their relationship, which was breached by defendant, and that the subsequent two $20,000 checks embodied "zero interest loans," which were to be repaid when defendant could afford to do so. She further asserts that defendant's circumstances improved so that the loans became due and payable and that, in any event, the doctrine of "unjust enrichment" requires repayment of at least the $40,000 in loans she made to defendant.

After hearing the testimony from both parties and reviewing the documentary evidence, Judge Robert Contillo placed the burden of proving a gift on defendant, and found that the $20,000 payments were made as "unconditional gifts" and accepted on that basis "with no strings attached," and that, as a result, there was neither a breach of any condition or unjust enrichment by defendant. The judge made similar findings regarding the first two payments totaling $15,000, concluding that they were made "without any expectation of any repayment nor any intent that it would ever be repaid." In sum, Judge Contillo concluded that all four payments were made with "no strings attached [and] no expectations of [re]payment," and that plaintiff intended to make "unconditional" gifts at the time each was made.

We affirm the judgment because there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings and conclusions of Judge Contillo. See Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974).

We recognize that in February 2002 defendant wrote to plaintiff thanking her for the money which he needed to pay off his debts and indicating that he "made up [his] mind to return" the money to plaintiff and would "feel more comfortable if I owe you less." We further recognize that in January 2003, defendant wrote that "[t]hough I promised to pay you $40,000 back," he did not "have the ability to pay that much right now . . . ." Again, in July 2003, defendant wrote that he would repay "all the money once my savings reach to as twice as the money I owe you." However, the plaintiff's note accompanying the first check in December 1998 referred to "a gift" that defendant "may reserve the right of returning" or "never forever mention it to each other" or anyone else, and as already noted, the subsequent checks were similarly found to be gifts. Hence, there was no consideration for the subsequent indications that defendant would make repayments, and there was neither a reasonable expectation by plaintiff nor obligation by defendant to repay the funds at the time they were received during their relationship which plaintiff was enjoying at the time. Moreover, as Judge Contillo stated, there is no basis for a judgment based on unjust enrichment in light of plaintiff's expectations and the parties' relationship at the time she made the gifts. Cf. VRG Corp. v. GKN Realty Corp., 135 N.J. 539, 554 (1994).

 
Affirmed.

Defendant's counterclaim was withdrawn at the commencement of the trial.

Plaintiff found an apartment for defendant, who she encouraged to move closer to her in Bergen County, and paid the security deposit and expenses incident to the apartment. The security deposit was later repaid to plaintiff by defendant.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-2466-04T3

January 10, 2006