WAYNE GRANT v. WACHOVIA SECURITIES, LLC

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1879-05T51879-05T5

WAYNE GRANT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WACHOVIA SECURITIES, LLC,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted February 7, 2007 - Decided February 23, 2007

Before Judges Yannotti and Messano.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. DC-010188-05.

Wayne Grant, appellant pro se.

Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, attorneys for respondent (Walter F. Kawalec, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this Special Civil Part matter, plaintiff Wayne Grant appeals the trial judge's dismissal of his complaint alleging breach of contract, deceptive or fraudulent practices and breach of a fiduciary duty against defendant, Wachovia Securities LLC (Wachovia). Plaintiff's complaint sought no compensatory damages, only punitive damages, in the amount of $13,099.76.

At trial, plaintiff testified that he opened a Simplified Employee Pension Plan with Prudential Securities (Prudential) in 2002 and deposited $5000 worth of British pounds in the account. In August, 2004, Wachovia advised plaintiff that it had merged with Prudential and it would no longer "hold or have custody of foreign currency." Defendant provided plaintiff four options: 1) exchange the pounds for dollars; 2) use the pounds to invest in another financial instrument; 3) transfer the pounds to another financial institution; or 4) instruct Wachovia to return the pounds to him.

Plaintiff did not choose any of the alternatives. In October, Wachovia sent plaintiff a "negative consent letter," which advised that if he did not exercise any of the options within thirty days, it would disburse the British pounds to him by check. In December, defendant forwarded plaintiff another letter advising that since he had not made a choice, it would distribute the British pounds to him by check. In February, 2005, a check made payable in British pounds was forwarded to plaintiff who cashed it. Plaintiff did not suffer a loss on the transaction; in fact, he concedes that "made money on the investment."

At the conclusion of the testimony, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. Judge Menelaos W. Toskos determined,

[P]laintiff didn't sustain any losses. The $13,000 [claim] is for punitive damages. And with regard to punitive damages, Mr. Grant you have to show something, malice, fraud or something like that. Nothing's been proven here.

He granted defendant's motion and dismissed the complaint.

On appeal, plaintiff raises numerous arguments all of which are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Toskos' oral opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).

Affirmed.

 

Our statement of facts is drawn in part from documents that were not introduced into evidence at trial but were included in plaintiff's appendix. Defendant acknowledges the accuracy of the information.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1879-05T5

 

February 23, 2007