Jmh Estates, LLC v. Marcus Jeter

── Jmh Estates, LLC v. Marcus Jeter ── Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0855-24 JMH ESTATES, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARCUS JETER, Defendant, and RAS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________________ Argued May 6, 2026 – Decided May 20, 2026 Before Judges Currier and Smith. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. C- 000039-21. Stilianos M. Cambilis argued the cause for appellant (Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC, attorneys; Rajeh A. Saadeh and Stilianos M. Cambilis, on the briefs).  Brian Michael Dratch argued the cause for respondent (The Dratch Law Firm PC, attorneys; Brian M. Dratch, on the brief). PER CURIAM RAS Investment Group, LLC (RAS) appeals from the trial court's orders denying its cross-motion for specific performance of an assignment agreement with JMH Estates, LLC (JMH) and compelling RAS to return JMH's deposit. For the reasons which follow, we affirm. I. On July 30, 2020, defendant Marcus Jeter executed a contract ("Contract") with NJ RE Investments, LLC to sell his condominium unit ("Property"). On September 9, 2020, NJ RE Investments, LLC assigned its interest in the Contract to RAS in exchange for $10,000. Later that day, RAS assigned its interest in the Contract to JMH in exchange for $11,500 ("assignment agreement"). In connection with the assignment agreement, JMH deposited $11,500 into escrow. Thereafter, Jeter became uncooperative, delaying the sale of the Property and completion of the Contract. JMH moved for specific performance of the Contract on March 8, 2021. Unbeknownst to JMH and RAS, Jeter was the defendant in a separate civil action filed on September 23, 2020. On December 2, 2021, judgment was A-0855-24 2 entered against him in that action for $522,117.49. The plaintiff in that civil action eventually obtained an Order Compelling Sale of the Property to satisfy the judgment on July 22, 2022. As a result, title to the Property was clouded and the Contract could no longer be fulfilled. Before this was discovered, RAS moved for specific performance of the assignment agreement to obtain JMH's deposit. The trial court granted the motion and issued an order compelling specific performance on December 7, 2021. Three days later, the trial court vacated that order. Upon learning that the Property had been sold subject to the July 2022 court order, JMH moved to compel RAS to return its $11,500 deposit. RAS cross-moved to compel specific performance of the assignment agreement and deny JMH's motion. The trial court granted JMH's motion seeking return of the deposit, and denied RAS's cross-motion, finding that the Contract could no longer be fulfilled and RAS could no longer provide good and marketable title pursuant to its assignment agreement with JMH. RAS appealed. Mindful that the questions of specific performance and return of the deposit present "mixed questions of law and fact," we nonetheless review the trial court's legal determinations de novo. D.T. v. Archdiocese of Phila., 260 N.J. 27, 41 (2025). Def