Attorney Madeline L Houston's Legal Cases

Discrimination

Sandra Smith v. Hillside Village, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14022 (D.N.J. Jan. 26, 2018)

Jan 26, 2018

OUTCOME: Plaintiff-tenant prevailed on motion: Landlord Counterclaim was dismissed

After its motion to dismiss Smith’s Complaint was denied, defendant landlord filed a Counterclaim seeking money damages from Smith for, among other things, damage she allegedly did to the apartment ste ... mming from hoarding activity, and for indemnification for alleged attorneys’ fees based on a clause in the lease. Smith filed a motion to dismiss the Counterclaim, arguing that the claim for alleged damages to the apartment was barred by res judicata as a result of the dismissal at trial of the landlord’s prior state court action under New Jersey’s Unlawful Detainer statute. Smith also argued that the “indemnification” claim against Smith was tantamount to an attempt to enforce an exculpatory clause, and that any such clause would be a violation of public policy as applied to her claims. The District of New Jersey court agreed with Smith and granted her motion to dismiss landlord’s counterclaim.

Consumer protection

Anthony D’Agostino v. Ricardo Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168 (2013)

Oct 03, 2013

OUTCOME: New Jersey Supreme Court held in accord with arguments in amicus brief

Submitted a brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court on behalf of amicus curiae Consumers League of New Jersey to address the issue of ascertainable loss and treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer F ... raud Act (CFA) in a case involving an unconscionable foreclosure rescue scheme in which the homeowners had signed over title to their home to the defendant. Our amicus brief argued that limiting the homeowners’ remedy under the CFA to return of title to their home, as the Appellate Division had done, satisfied only one level of treble damages, did not fulfill the deterrent, punitive and private attorney general functions of treble damages, undermined the Consumer Fraud Act’s express intent that its remedies be cumulative to other remedies, and was not supported by the language or policy of the Consumer Fraud Act. The Supreme Court so held in all respects.

Foreclosure

Gonzalez v. Wilshire Credit Corporation, 207 N.J. 557 (2011)

Aug 29, 2011

OUTCOME: Homeowner prevailed on appeal

Represented homeowner who alleged that mortgage servicer engaged in unconscionable conduct in the performance of a post-foreclosure forbearance agreement by charging her for forced-placed insurance she ... did not need because the house was already insured, charging her unwarranted and unexplained fees, and otherwise improperly diverting her payments. Homeowner sued under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). The lender and servicer argued that the CFA did not apply and the trial court agreed, but homeowner appealed and the Appellate Division and then the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the CFA does apply to such situations and allowed the homeowner's CFA claim to go forward.

Foreclosure

Delta Funding Corp. v. Harris, 189 N.J. 28 (2006)

Aug 09, 2006

OUTCOME: Homeowner succeeded in invalidating several aspects of arbitration agreement

Lender moved to compel arbitration of homeowner’s counterclaims/third party claims in pending foreclosure action. Supreme Court found several provisions of the arbitration agreement unconscionable, i.e ... ., provision allowing arbitrators to force the mortgagor to pay all arbitration costs if she lost, provision preventing her from recovering discretionary statutory attorneys' fees and costs, and the provision barring her from recovering costs and attorneys’ fees on appeal even if she prevailed. Case also established for the first time in New Jersey that in analyzing the costs imposed by an arbitration provision, reviewing courts should not consider after-the-fact offers by defendants to pay the plaintiff's share of the arbitration costs where the agreement itself provides that the plaintiff is liable. The Supreme Court confirmed that attorneys' fees are available under the for successfully defending a foreclosure based on violations of the Consumer Fraud Act.

Consumer protection

Laufer v. The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York, 385 N.J. Super. 172 (App. Div. 2006)

Feb 15, 2006

OUTCOME: Insured prevailed on appeal

Represented plaintiff and (b)(2) class of New Jersey insureds in consumer fraud class action which established for the first time that only the named plaintiffs in a class action must be able to demons ... trate an ascertainable loss under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act in order to have standing to sue on behalf of a class.

Consumer protection

Scott v. Mayflower Home Improvement; BankAtlantic, FSB, 363 N.J.Super. 145 (Law Div. 2001)

Aug 10, 2001

OUTCOME: Homeowners and class prevailed on motion

Represented plaintiff class of homeowners in class action lawsuit against a home repair entity, its principals, and banks which took assignment of the installment contracts. The trial court decision e ... stablished, among other things, that 1) TILA does not abrogate the Federal Trade Commission Preservation of Consumers Claims and Defenses Rule, 16 C.F.R. 433, 2) contrary to case law across the country, the Federal Trade Commission Preservation of Consumers Claims and Defenses Rule, 16 C.F.R. 433, applies to all claims and defenses, not just those proving that the homeowner received little or nothing of value; 3) that home repair contracts, notes and mortgages that violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act or the New Jersey Home Repair Financing Act are void and unenforceable.

Foreclosure

Associates Home Equity Services v. Troup, 343 N.J.Super. 254 (App. Div. 2001)

Jul 25, 2001

OUTCOME: Homeowners prevailed on appeal

Represented homeowners in foreclosure action; brought defenses, counterclaims and third party claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the federal Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act, ... and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act against original lender and its assignee, as well as home repair related claims against lender and home repair contractor. Trial court granted summary judgment against defendants; Appellate Division reversed and its published decision ruled on a number of issues of first impression, for example: if the Notice required to be inserted into certain consumer credit contracts by the Federal Trade Commission Preservation of Consumers Claims and Defenses Rule, 16 C.F.R. 433, is improperly omitted by the lender, it shall be deemed an implicit provision of the note as a matter of state law (prior to this ruling lenders argued that consumers had no remedy for omission of the FTC Rule, relying on a body of law establishing that there is no private federal cause of action for violation of the FTC Rule); claims of predatory, discriminatory and unconscionable lending practices can be brought by homeowners by recoupment in a foreclosure action; claims of lending discrimination such as reverse redlining can be proven in New Jersey by proof of disparate impact as well as intentional discrimination.

Debt and lending agreements

Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management Corporation of America, 150 N.J. 255 (1997)

Jul 03, 1997

OUTCOME: New Jersey Supreme Court held in accord with arguments in amicus brief

Admitted as amicus curiae before the New Jersey Supreme Court to address the issue of whether the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act applies to highly regulated industries; the amicus brief argued, and the ... Supreme Court so held, that a preemption analysis applies to the issue, and unless there is an irreconcilable conflict or express intention on the part of the legislature to exempt a specific industry from Consumer Fraud Act coverage, the Act will apply.

Consumer protection

Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2 (1994)

Sep 15, 1994

OUTCOME: New Jersey Supreme Court held in accord with arguments in amicus brief

As Director of Litigation of The Passaic County Legal Aid Society, admitted as amicus curiae before the New Jersey Supreme Court to address the issue of what constitutes damages under the New Jersey Co ... nsumer Fraud Act. The amicus brief argued, and the Supreme Court so held, that a debt can be an “ascertainable loss” to be trebled under the Act, even though the debt has not yet been paid out of pocket by the consumer.

Consumer protection

Green v. Continental Rentals, 292 N.J.Super. 241 (Law Div. 1996)

Mar 25, 1994

OUTCOME: Plaintiff prevailed on motion

As Director of Litigation for the Passaic County Legal Aid Society, represented plaintiffs in an action against a rent-to-own business which had charged consumers monthly “rental” payments equivalent t ... o in excess of 100% interest; the published decision established that rent-to-own transactions such as those before the court are as a matter of law subject to the Retail Installment Sales Act and the state criminal usury statute, and that violations of those laws are per se violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Madeline L Houston's Legal Cases (10)

Sandra Smith v. Hillside Village, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14022 (D.N.J. Jan. 26, 2018)

Anthony D’Agostino v. Ricardo Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168 (2013)

Gonzalez v. Wilshire Credit Corporation, 207 N.J. 557 (2011)

Delta Funding Corp. v. Harris, 189 N.J. 28 (2006)

Laufer v. The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York, 385 N.J. Super. 172 (App. Div. 2006)

Scott v. Mayflower Home Improvement; BankAtlantic, FSB, 363 N.J.Super. 145 (Law Div. 2001)

Associates Home Equity Services v. Troup, 343 N.J.Super. 254 (App. Div. 2001)

Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management Corporation of America, 150 N.J. 255 (1997)

Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2 (1994)

Green v. Continental Rentals, 292 N.J.Super. 241 (Law Div. 1996)