MARIA TLATELPA v. MAURICIO TORRES
Annotate this CaseNOT 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-1226-20
MARIA TLATELPA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MAURICIO TORRES,
Defendant-Respondent.
__________________________
Submitted December 8, 2021 – Decided February 28, 2022
Before Judges Whipple and Susswein.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-2829-19.
Bastarikka, Soto, Gonzalez & Somohano, LLC,
attorneys for appellant (Franklin G. Soto, on the brief).
Law Office of Abe Rappaport, attorneys for respondent
(Kevin E. Lee, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
This case arises from an "as is" sale of a single-family residential property.
Plaintiff Maria Tlatelpa, the purchaser, appeals from a December 7, 2020, Law
Division order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant, Mauricio
Torres, the seller, dismissing plaintiff's complaint alleging fraud under the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20 ("CFA") and the common
law. After carefully reviewing the record in light of the applicable principles of
law, we affirm.
I.
We briefly summarize the pertinent facts and procedural history. On
August 20, 2018, the parties closed on the sale of a single-family residential
property located on Randolph Avenue in Clifton (the Property). Torres did not
reside in the Property, having acquired it approximately one year before as an
investment. Neither party disputes that the Contract of Sale for the Property
indicates that it was being sold "as is." The Contract of Sale also included
Tlatelpa's acknowledgment that she entered into the sale on the basis of her own
knowledge, and that she was not relying on any representation made by the
seller.
Under the Contract of Sale, Tlatelpa retained the right to inspect the
Property before closing and to rescind the sale if that inspection was
unsatisfactory. She exercised that option and commissioned a Home Inspection
Report (Report), which was prepared by A Advanced Home Inspection. The
A-1226-20
2
Report revealed several issues, including termite damage "infiltrating the home's
structures" that required a supportive beam in the basement to be replaced. The
report also revealed a leaking hot water heater and leaks in the plumbing of both
bathrooms. The plumbing issues had caused significant mold growth throughout
the home. The report advised Tlatelpa to retain the services of a licensed
plumber and a mold abatement company to "investigate, remedy and certify[.]"
While the report did not specifically mention problems with the septic system ,
it did note that "[t]he main case iron underground sewer pipe is heavily rusted,
corroded, leaking and in need of complete replacement by a licensed plumber."
Likewise, the Report noted there was "evidence of a possible abandoned
underground oil tank," alerting Tlatelpa to the potential problem.
Torres agreed to abate the termite issue and repair the support beam before
closing. The trial court found that "[p]laintiff was made aware of the defective
plumbing in the inspection report and chose to proceed with closing on the
property" although it had not been repaired by the seller before closing. As the
trial court emphasized in its opinion, the Contract of Sale indicates "[t]he Buyer
entered into the Contract on August 20, 2018, based on her knowledge and not
on any representation made by the seller."
A-1226-20
3
On September 9, 2019, Tlatelpa filed a complaint alleging that Torres
committed fraud under the CFA and common law. In that complaint,
Plaintiff alleged that Defendant informed plaintiff that
the [p]roperty was habitable, in saleable condition with
no material defects; that there were significant issues
with the plumbing[] and sewer line which cost the
Plaintiff $18,000 to repair; and an oil tank had to be
removed costing an additional $10,000. Plaintiff
alleged that Defendant knowingly misrepresented,
concealed, or omitted material facts with the intent that
the Plaintiff rely on said misrepresentation.
[Ibid.]
At the close of discovery, Torres moved for summary judgment. He
argued that the record showed that he was a casual investor rather than a licensed
realtor and therefore was not subject to the CFA. He further argued that Tlatelpa
failed to present evidence of his pre-existing knowledge of the defects,
misrepresentation, or reasonable reliance. Tlatelpa opposed the motion for
summary judgment.
The parties waived oral argument. On December 7, 2020, the trial court
issued an order and written Statement of Reasons, granting Torres' motion for
summary judgment on both claims. The trial judge found that although Torres
had purchased the property as an investment, Tlatelpa failed to present evidence
to prove her claim that "Defendant is in the business of 'flipping' houses." The
A-1226-20
4
court found there was no evidence to suggest that Torres was a professional
seller of real estate or that he advertised his services as a realtor to the public.
The trial judge concluded that, as a non-professional, the seller was not subject
to the CFA. The court also found that Tlatelpa failed "to present evidence of
unlawful conduct by the Defendant that has a causal connection to [her]
ascertainable loss" as required by the CFA.
The trial court reasoned:
The Contract of Sale indicates that the property was
being sold "as is." In the July 7, 2018, Inspection
Report, commissioned by the Plaintiff, Plaintiff was put
on notice of potential plumbing issues throughout the
property . . . . Nevertheless, Plaintiff proceeded to close
on the property. The Plaintiff has offered no further
proof of misrepresentation or omission on the part of
the [seller] regarding the condition of the property's
plumbing. Furthermore, no evidence has been
proffered to demonstrate that Defendant had any
knowledge of the oil tank, or that he suppressed such
knowledge. The only evidence offered as to
Defendant's knowledge was an alleged conversation
between Plaintiff and Defendant's neighbor, Bujar[,] as
to his reasons for not purchasing the property. This
conversation amounts to nothing more than hearsay and
does not establish that Plaintiff was aware of, and
concealed knowledge of the oil tank.
The trial court also found that Tlatelpa failed to present evidence to prove
the common law fraud claim. Specifically, the court found that she failed to
A-1226-20
5
"provide[] any evidence of a misrepresentation or omission as to a present or
past fact" or that the buyer had relied on any such misrepresentation or omission.
Tlatelpa alleged that the Torres had previous knowledge of the defect in
the sewer pipe because he had repaired it himself in the past. The trial court
found that she produced "no facts to rely on this claim" because she had
"neglected to set forth anything related to plumbing that [the seller] may or may
not have done[]" beyond "a permit for building that he took out from the city of
Passaic[.]" The trial court reasoned that plaintiff "ha[d] not sufficiently set forth
a factually based act or omission on the part of the [seller] to maintain her claim
of fraud." The court concluded, "[f]or the foregoing reasons, there exists no
genuine dispute as to any material facts and the Motion for Summary Judgment
on both counts of the Complaint is granted."
This appeal followed.
Plaintiff raises the following contentions for our consideration:
POINT I
THE JUDGE ERRED BELOW IN DETERMINING
THAT APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT A GENUINE "ISSUE" OF
FACT EXISTED CONCERNING WHETHER THE
RESPONDENT WAS SUBJECT TO THE PURVIEW
OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT,
N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20.
A-1226-20
6
POINT II
THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE
SECOND COUNT OF THE APPELLANT'S
COMPLAINT RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF
ESTABLISHING A VIABLE CLAIM AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT FOR COMMON LAW FRAUD.
II.
We begin our analysis by acknowledging the legal principles governing
this appeal. Our review of a trial court's summary judgment order is de novo.
Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 224 N.J. 189, 199
(2016) (citing Mem'l Props., LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 210 N.J. 512, 524
(2012)). Accordingly, the trial court's analysis is not entitled to any special
deference. Manalapan Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366,
378 (1995).
We apply the same standards as the trial court when reviewing an appeal
of an order granting summary judgment. Walker v. Atl. Chrysler Plymouth, 216 N.J. Super. 255, 258 (App. Div. 1987). Summary judgment should be granted
when the pleadings and discovery show "that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or
order as a matter of law." R. 4:46-2(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists
when the discovery materials, "viewed in the light most favorable to the non -
A-1226-20
7
moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged
disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party." Brill v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).
Importantly for the purposes of this appeal, "[b]are conclusions in the
pleadings, without factual support in tendered affidavits, will not defeat a
meritorious application for summary judgment." U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v.
Am. Arb. Ass'n., 67 N.J. Super. 384, 399–400 (App. Div. 1961). Our rules
require a movant to file a statement of material facts, with or without supporting
affidavits, that sets forth a concise statement of each material fact to which the
movant contends there is no genuine issue. R. 4:46-2(a). The respondent must
file a responding statement that admits or disputes each fact in the movant's
statement. R. 4:46-2(b). Unless the respondent specifically disputes a material
fact and demonstrates the existence of a genuine issue of fact, the movant's
statement will be deemed admitted. R. 4:46-2(a)–(c). A party offering no
substantial or material facts in opposition to the motion cannot complain if the
court takes as true the uncontradicted facts in the movant's papers. See Judson
v. People's Bank & Tr. Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 75 (1954); R. 4:46-5.
A-1226-20
8
III.
We first address contentions regarding the CFA. N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 defines
"[f]raud . . . in connection with the sale or advertisement of . . . real estate" as:
The act, use or employment by any person of any
unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud,
false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the
knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any
material fact with intent that others rely upon such
concealment, suppression or omission, in connection
with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or
real estate[.]
[N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.]
In Zaman v. Felton, the Supreme Court explained, "[t]o prevail on a CFA
claim, a plaintiff must establish three elements: '1) unlawful conduct by
defendant; 2) an ascertainable loss by plaintiff; and 3) a causal relationship
between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.'" 219 N.J. 199, 222
(2014) (quoting Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009)).
Importantly for the purposes of this appeal, the Court in Zaman further
explained,
Notwithstanding these broad definitions, New Jersey
appellate courts have adopted "a limited construction of
the [CFA]'s applicability to real estate transactions."
539 Absecon Boulevard, L.L.C. v. Shan Enters. Ltd.,
406 N.J. Super. 242, 274 (App. Div. 2009). Consistent
with the CFA's limitation to "fraudulent, deceptive or
other similar kind of selling or advertising practices,"
A-1226-20
9
Daaleman v. Elizabethtown Gas Co., 77 N.J. 267, 271
(1978), our courts have declined to impose the CFA
remedies upon the non-professional, casual seller of
real estate, see Strawn v. Canuso, 140 N.J. 43, 59
(1995) (limiting "holding to professional sellers of
residential housing (persons engaged in the business of
building or developing residential housing) and the
brokers representing them"); Byrne v. Weichert
Realtors, 290 N.J. Super. 126, 134 (App. Div.) ("The
provision does not apply, however, to non-professional
sellers of real estate, i.e. to the homeowner who sells a
house in the normal course of events."), certif. denied,
147 N.J. 259 (1996). Indeed, this Court has never
applied the CFA against a non-professional, who does
not advertise real estate services to the public, based
upon his or her purchase of residential real estate for
personal use or as an investment.
[Id. at 223]
The Court held in that case that the trial court correctly dismissed the
plaintiff's claim on the grounds that he failed to demonstrate that the defendant
"committed an 'unconscionable business practice' within the meaning of
N.J.S.A. 56:8-2[]" because "Zaman did not advertise real estate services to the
public, initiate contact with [the defendant], or demand a fee for real estate
services." Id. at 224.
In the matter before us, the trial court found that Tlatelpa failed to present
evidence to prove two of the three elements: unlawful conduct by the seller and
a causal relationship between any such unlawful conduct and the buyer's
A-1226-20
10
ascertainable loss. Torres produced an affidavit stating that he was not a
licensed realtor or broker and that he did not advertise real estate services to the
public. The record shows that Tlatelpa produced no contradictory evidence.
The trial court found in this regard:
Here, the CFA does not apply because the Defendant
was not a professional seller of real estate. There is no
evidence to suggest that the Defendant is a professional
who advertises real estate services to the public. The
Defendant simply purchased the property as an
investment. Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that
Defendant was in the business of "flipping" houses as
alleged in the opposition [to defendant's motion for
summary judgment].
We agree with the trial court's finding and conclusion. We reiterate that
a bare assertion is insufficient to "defeat a meritorious application for summary
judgment." U.S. Pipe, 67 N.J. Super. at 399–400. Accordingly, we conclude
that Tlatelpa failed to present evidence to prove the first element of the CFA —
that defendant's conduct was unlawful.
The trial court found another independently sufficient ground for
dismissing the CFA claim. As we have noted, a plaintiff must prove not only
unlawful conduct but also a causal link between that conduct and the plaintiff's
ascertainable loss. In this instance, Tlatelpa failed to prove that Torres' conduct
caused her loss.
A-1226-20
11
Neither party disputes that the property was purchased "as is." The
Contract of Sale includes an express affirmation that Tlatelpa's decision to
purchase the Property did not rely on any representations by the seller.
Furthermore, Tlatelpa exercised the option to inspect the Property before
completing the transaction. In these circumstances, by completing the
transaction, she agreed to accept the risk of expensive home repairs unknown at
the time of sale. We thus agree with the trial court that Tlatelpa failed to present
evidence to support her CFA claim. See Judson, 17 N.J. at 75; R. 4:46-5.
IV.
We next address Tlatelpa's contentions regarding common law fraud. To
state a claim for common law fraud, a plaintiff must allege facts that, if proven,
would establish the following five elements: "(1) a material misrepresentation
of a presently existing or past fact; (2) knowledge or belief by the defendant of
its falsity; (3) an intention that the other person rely on it; (4) reasonable reliance
thereon by the other person; and (5) resulting damages." Gennari v. Weichert
Co. Realtors, 148 N.J. 582, 610 (1997) (citation omitted). Importantly, "fraud
is never presumed, but must be established by clear and convincing
evidence." Weil v. Express Container Corp., 360 N.J. Super. 599, 613 (App.
Div. 2003).
A-1226-20
12
Tlatelpa averred that
[t]he failure to disclose the existence of the [o]il tank
constituted (1) a (potential) material misrepresentation
of present fact which; (2) Respondent's likely
knowledge that the appellant was unaware of its
existence constituted a false fact; (3) which was
information which the Respondent should have
expected the Appellant to rely on; (4) which the
Appellant did in fact rely on in deciding to purchase the
property and (5) which unfortunately caused her
resulting financial harm.
We agree with the trial court that Tlatelpa failed to present evidence to
prove either misrepresentation or reasonable reliance. It is insufficient to allege
a "potential" material misrepresentation. Rather, to survive a motion for
summary judgment a plaintiff must produce evidence of the defendant's
misrepresentation. As we have already noted, when a party offers no substantial
or material facts in opposition to the summary judgment motion, the co urt may
take as true the uncontradicted facts in the movant's papers. See Judson, 17 N.J.
at 75; R. 4:46-5. Here, Tlatelpa failed to provide evidence that Torres was aware
of the problems with the septic system or the underground oil tank.
Nor does the record support her claim that she reasonably relied on the
seller's representation. To the contrary, by initialing the relevant term on the
Contract of Sale, she expressly affirmed that she did not rely on any
A-1226-20
13
representations made by respondent in deciding to complete the purchase. The
Contract reads in relevant part:
(D) Buyer's Right to Inspections.
Buyer acknowledges that the Property is being sold in
an "as is" condition and that this contract is entered into
based upon the knowledge of Buyer as to the value of
the land and whatever buildings are upon the Property,
and not on any representation made by Seller, Brokers
or their agents as to character or quality of the Property.
[Ibid.]
"When used in connection with the sale of real property, 'as is' generally
means the purchaser is acquiring real property in its present state or condition."
K. Woodmere Assocs. L.P. v. Menk Corp., 316 N.J. Super. 306, 316 (App. Div.
1998). Appellant took the property "with whatever faults it may possess" and
released the seller of "any obligation to reimburse purchaser for losses or
damages resulting from the condition of the property conveyed." Id. at 317.
Buyer's initials directly below section (D) indicate her affirmation.
To the extent we have not specifically addressed them, any remaining
arguments raised by plaintiff lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R.
2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-1226-20
14
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
