MARGALIE ORLEANS VS. WM. S. RICH & SON (SC-000269-17, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4310-16T3
MARGALIE ORLEANS,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WM. S. RICH & SON,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Submitted October 17, 2018 – Decided August 14, 2019
Before Judges Fuentes and Accurso.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Union County, Docket No. SC-000269-17.
Anthony H. Guerino, attorney for appellant.
Margalie Orleans, respondent pro se.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Wm. S. Rich & Son, a pawnbroker, appeals from the judgment
entered by the Law Division, Special Civil Part, Small Claims, 1 which found
defendant failed to return a diamond pendant pledged by plaintiff Margalie
Orleans as collateral for a $500 loan. We affirm.
Judge James Wilson conducted a bench trial at which plaintiff appeared
pro se and defendant was represented by counsel. Plaintiff testified that on
August 4, 2016, she gave defendant "a piece of carat diamond pendant," which
she described as a "diamond circle . . . with little diamonds all inside of it . . .
[a] pair of diamond earrings . . . a three-stone diamond engagement ring, [and]
a diamond ring," as collateral for a $500 loan. This transaction occurred at
defendant's store located at Stuyvesant Avenue in the Township of Union.
Plaintiff testified she repaid the loan on January 13, 2017, which consisted
of $500 in principal and $139 in interest, for a total of $639. The pledge ticket
admitted into evidence shows on its face that defendant charged plaintiff an
annualized interest rate of 54.8 percent. However, plaintiff claimed defendant
did not return the diamond pedant, which was among the jewelry she pledged as
1
Pursuant to Rule 6:1-2(a)(2), this matter was tried as a Small Claims case
because the amount in dispute, including any applicable penalties, does not
exceed $3,000.
A-4310-16T3
2
collateral for the loan. In an effort to clarify the basis for plaintiff's claim against
defendant, Judge Wilson asked plaintiff the following question:
PLAINTIFF: So Mr. Rich's staff stated, according to
the defendant, this pendant was removed from this
silver necklace. That's how he explained why this was
inventoried the way it was. According to him, the chain
was separate, which is what you see first. The pendant
was the second item, which he stated is two units.
THE COURT: So . . . you're saying that you gave him
a necklace with a diamond pendant on it.
PLAINTIFF: Yes.
THE COURT: And then you gave him a separate
diamond pendant?
PLAINTIFF: Correct.
....
Your Honor, I would like to bring to the [c]ourt's
attention that the diamond pendant we're discussing is
very small. It's a half a diamond, originally that were a
pair of tiny studs which were given to me as a gift when
I graduated from corrections. Because they were so
tiny, when I wore them they were invisible, so I decided
to take them apart and turn them into a diamond
pendant. So we're looking at something that's maybe a
little bigger than . . . a few inches. So it's pretty small.
It's all pure diamonds.
THE COURT: And you're saying that it's worth $2,000?
PLAINTIFF: It is. It was from Macy's. It is worth
$2,000.
A-4310-16T3
3
As part of defense counsel's cross-examination, plaintiff testified she had
dealt with defendant before and, up to this point, had not had any problems.
Plaintiff also testified the pendant was purchased at the Macy's store located in
the Short Hills Mall.
Defendant called as its only witness Mark Desanctis, the manager of the
store located in Union Township. According to Desanctis, Wm. S. Rich & Son
owns and operates twelve pawnshops located throughout the State. He also
acknowledged being familiar with plaintiff's case and confirmed that plaintiff
pledged this jewelry on August 4, 2016. The notations on the pledged record
confirmed the receipt of "a chain, a diamond pendant, a diamond cluster ring, a
three-stone diamond ring, and a pair of diamond and stone earrings." According
to Desanctis, these five items were returned to plaintiff. However, Desanctis
corroborated plaintiff's testimony that the chain was separated from the pendant
and was thus considered two separate items of jewelry. Desanctis identified a
copy of a redeem ticket dated August 4, 2016, with plaintiff's signature,
reflecting five items of jewelry.
On cross-examination by plaintiff, Desanctis testified he was at the store
on January 13, 2017. However, the redeem ticket was not time-stamped.
Desanctis also confirmed that the writing on the redeem ticket was from Kelly,
A-4310-16T3
4
"one of the workers . . . at the store." The store at Union Township had three
fulltime employees at the time. When plaintiff asked Desanctis why Kelly was
not in court to testify, he responded: "She doesn’t need to be here. . . . I'm the
manager of the store."
At the conclusion of the trial, Judge Wilson found defendant's witness's
testimony "fraught with hearsay, as he had no firsthand knowledge of what
actually happened[.]" Judge Wilson thus found plaintiff had sustained her
burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence:
that on August 4th, 2016 . . . she came to the defendant's
shop, tendered six items to the defendant for collateral
for a $500-loan, and that when she paid off the loan she
only received five of those items back, and she was
missing a diamond pendant, half a carat that was
merged together, and that was worth $2,000.
The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $2,000, plus
court costs.
Against this record defendant argues the trial court's decision must be
reversed because there was no evidence to support the value of the pendant,
Judge Wilson's decision "could not have been reasonably reached," and t he
testimony about insurance coverage for this loss constituted plain error under
Rule 2:10-2.
A-4310-16T3
5
Defendant is regulated by the New Jersey Department of Banking and
Insurance as a licensed pawnbroker under the General Provisions Regulating
Pawnbrokers, N.J.S.A. 45:22-1 to -33, officially known as the "pawnbroking
law." N.J.S.A. 45:22-1. Under this statutory scheme, defendant is:
liable for the loss of a pledge or part thereof, or for
injury thereto, whether caused by fire, theft, burglary or
otherwise, resulting from his failure to exercise
reasonable care in regard to it, but he shall not be liable,
in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary,
for the loss of a pledge or part thereof, or for injury
thereto, which could not have been avoided by the
exercise of such care. The burden of proof to establish
reasonable care shall be upon the pawnbroker.
[N.J.S.A. 45:22-24 (emphasis added).]
Furthermore, we review the factual determinations made by a judge sitting
as the trier of fact in a bench trial guided by the following deferential standard:
Final determinations made by the trial court sitting in a
non-jury case are subject to a limited and well-
established scope of review: "we do not disturb the
factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge
unless we are convinced that they are so manifestly
unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent,
relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend
the interests of justice[.]"
[D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168, 182 (2013)
(quoting Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 205
N.J. 150, 169 (2011) (alteration in original)).]
A-4310-16T3
6
Based on this well-settled common law standard of review, as augmented
by defendant's burden of proof under N.J.S.A. 45:22-24, we discern no legal or
factual basis to disturb Judge Wilson's findings.
Affirmed.
A-4310-16T3
7