Preview
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire - 026261996
Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992
1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
(856) 779-0300
Attorneys for Plaintiff/44207
SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY
v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23
DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action
SLUKA, AND ROBERT SLUKA,
CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT
Defendants. OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO CROSS-
MOTION OF DEFENDANTS
Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire, hereby certifies as follows:
1. I am an attorney-at-law of the State of New Jersey and am associated with the law
firm of Saldutti Law Group, attorneys for Plaintiff, Santander Bank, N.A. As such, I am
authorized to make this Certification, and do so based upon personal knowledge.
2. The Court entered final judgment in favor of Santander Bank, N.A. and against all
Defendants in the amount of $252,459.17 via Order dated July 19, 2023. However, said Order
did not address the request made by Plaintiff for the inclusion of attorney fees and costs. A true
copy of said Order is attached and marked as Exhibit “A”.
3. Furthermore, as clearly stated in the underlying loan documents, the default of
which formed the claim asserted by the Plaintiff herein, contain unequivocal language that
Plaintiff has the right to recover all costs of collection, including attorney fees and court costs,
incurred with the enforcement of the loan documents. A true copy of the Certification of
Theresa Calsetta, with exhibits, is attached as Exhibit “B”.
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
4. Plaintiff has filed a motion returnable on November 17, 2023 in the instant matter
seeking to Amend the Judgment to include attorney fees and costs. A true copy of the filed
motion is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.
5. Defendants’ cross-motion is disingenuous given their assertion of a frivolous
counterclaim that has been dismissed with prejudice and defendants failure to abide by the
discovery rules forcing Plaintiff to pursue motions both pre- and post-judgment has caused
Plaintiff to incur substantial attorney fees which continue to the present.
6. Defense counsel’s self-serving dismissal of Plaintiff’s pending motion to enforce
litigants rights as being unnecessary in his Certification of the Cross-Motion is emblematic of the
Defendants’ behavior throughout this litigation.
7. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs of enforcing its rights as to the loan
agreement at issue and the costs incurred in its efforts to recover the judgment entered by this
Court and therefore Defendants’ Cross-Motion must be denied.
I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any
of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
/S/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER
______________________________
BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE
Dated: October 29, 2023
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 1 of 1 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992
Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire - 026261996
1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034
(856) 779-0300
Attorneys for Plaintiff/ 44207
SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY
v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23
DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action
SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA,
PROOF OF MAILING
Defendants
The original of the within Notice of Motion has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior
in the County of Burlington, 49 Rancocas Road, Mt. Holly, New Jersey.
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
/s/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER
______________________________
BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff
PROOF OF MAILING: On October 29, 2023, I the undersigned, served on Steven C.
Schechter, Esq., attorney for Defendants, via eCourts, the following:
Certification in Opposition to Cross-Motion; Proof of Mailing
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the
foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
/s/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER
______________________________
BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff
Date: October 29, 2023
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-22
10/29/2023
07/19/2023
12:19:30Pg
PM1 ofPg
2 1Trans
of 2 ID:
Trans
LCV20232123300
ID: LCV20233238755
SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY
v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22
DATA-PAGES INC AND LORRAINE Civil Action
SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA
ORDER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant(s).
THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment, as well as Plaintiff’s motions for replevin and to compel depositions, and the Court
having reviewed the papers submitted and having heard oral argument of Counsel, and for the
reasons set forth on the record and for good cause shown:
19th day of ____________________
IT IS on this ________ July 2023 ORDERED that summary
judgment be entered against Defendants, Data-Pages Inc and Lorraine Sluka and Robert Sluka,
and in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $252,459.17; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for replevin is hereby DENIED.
While the Court previously indicated it was inclined to grant plaintiff’s motion for replevin, the
Court has since determined that replevin is not the proper vehicle for the relief
sought. Specifically, Court Rule 4:61-1(a) provides that a writ of replevin shall issue when the
Court determines “that there is a probability that final judgment will be entered in favor of the
movant.” Thus, replevin is prejudgment relief. Here, judgment has been entered. The appropriate
course of action is for plaintiff to execute on that judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ counterclaim is dismissed with
prejudice. By way of supplement to the Court’s decision on the record, the Court notes that
Defendants’ counterclaim rises or falls on the strength of the proofs supporting those defenses
raised. As noted, the subject modification agreement is enforceable and as such the issues
remaining before the Court pertain to whether there was a further modification that the plaintiff
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-22
10/29/2023
07/19/2023
12:19:30Pg
PM2 ofPg
2 2Trans
of 2 ID:
Trans
LCV20232123300
ID: LCV20233238755
breached and whether the plaintiff violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in
performing its obligations under the modification agreement. Defendants are unable to identify
any terms of any supposed subsequent understanding reached, nor can Defendants point to
conduct which deprived them of the benefit of the bargain they entered. The counterclaim fails.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions is DENIED
as moot; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be deemed effectuated upon all
parties upon its upload to eCourts. Movant shall serve all parties not electronically served within
seven (7) days of the date of this Order.
______________________________
Richard L. Hertzberg, J.S.C.
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 1 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 2 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 3 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 4 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 5 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 6 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 7 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 8 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 9 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 10 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 11 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 12 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 13 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 14 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023
10/27/202312:19:30
3:39:24 PM Pg 1 of 64
1 Trans
TransID:
ID:LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992
Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire - 026261996
1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034
(856) 779-0300
Attorneys for Plaintiff/44207
SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY
v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23
DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action
SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA,
NOTICE OF MOTION TO AMEND
Defendants. JUDGMENT FOR CONTRACTUAL
COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
TO: Steven C. Schechter, Esq.
36 Fairview Terrace
Paramus, NJ 07652
Attorney for Defendants
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned will apply to the above named Court at
49 Rancocas Road, Mt. Holly, New Jersey, on November 17, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard, for an Order to Amend Judgment to include contractual court
costs and attorney’s fees upon the following grounds:
The undersigned will rely upon the attached Brief and Certifications.
A proposed form of Order is attached.
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
/s/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER
______________________________
BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff
Dated: October 27, 2023
Pursuant to R. 1:6-2(d), the undersigned:
(xxx) Oral argument is requested if opposition is received
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 2 of 64 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023
10/27/202312:19:30
3:39:24 PM Pg 3
1 of 64
1 Trans
TransID:
ID:LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992
Thomas B. O’Connell, Esquire - 031102008
1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034
(856) 779-0300
Attorneys for Plaintiff/ 44207
SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY
v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23
DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action
SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA,
ORDER
Defendants
This matter having come before the Court by Brian J. Schaffer, Esq., from the law firm of
Saldutti Law Group, counsel for Plaintiff, Santander Bank, N.A., and for good cause shown, it is
on this ______ day of _____________________, 2023, hereby,
ORDERED that:
The sum of $18,215.90, representing $17,255.50 in attorney’s fees and $960.40 in costs,
is added as additional sums to the Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants
Data-Pages, Inc., Lorraine Sluka, and Robert Sluka.
______________________________
J.S.C.
____ opposed
____ unopposed
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 4 of 64 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023
10/27/202312:19:30
3:39:24 PM Pg 5
1 of 64
2 Trans
TransID:
ID:LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992
Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire - 026261996
1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034
(856) 779-0300
Attorneys for Plaintiff/ 44207
SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY
v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23
DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action
SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA,
CERTIFICATION OF BRIAN J.
Defendants SCHAFFER, ESQ.
I, Brian J. Schaffer, Esq., of full age, hereby certify as follows:
1. I am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New Jersey. I am associated
with Saldutti Law Group, counsel for Santander Bank, N.A. (“Plaintiff” or “Santander”) in the
above-captioned matter.
2. On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed the above-captioned Complaint against Data-
Pages. Inc. (“Data-Pages”), Lorraine Sluka and Robert Sluka (“Sluka Defendants”) (collectively
“Defendants”) alleging default on the commercial loan.
3. On April 21, 2023, the Court entered an Order granting summary judgment in
favor of Plaintiff as to all defenses except regarding the issue whether terms of the modification
Agreement had been modified. A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order dated April 21,
2023 is attached as Exhibit “A”.
4. On July 19, 2023, the Court entered an Order granting summary judgment in
favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $252,459.17 but did not address
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023
10/27/202312:19:30
3:39:24 PM Pg 6
2 of 64
2 Trans
TransID:
ID:LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees. A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order dated July 19,
2023 is attached as Exhibit “B”.
I certify that the foregoing statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information
and belief. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are willfully false, I am subject to
punishment.
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
/s/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER
______________________________
BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff
Dated: October 26, 2023
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023
10/27/202312:19:30
3:39:24 PM Pg 7
1 of 64
6 Trans
TransID:
ID:LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992
Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire - 026261996
1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034
(856) 779-0300
Attorneys for Plaintiff/44207
SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY
v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23
DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action
SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA,
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
Defendants
BACKGROUND
On or about March 29, 2017, Santander Bank, N.A. (“Plaintiff” or “Santander”) entered
into a $375,000.00 commercial loan with Data-Pages, Inc. (“Data-Pages”), the terms of which
were memorialized in a Promissory Note (“Note”) (Calsetta Cert. at Ex. A). The Note provided:
ATTORNEY’S FEES; EXPENSES. Lender may hire or pay
someone else to collect this Note if Borrower does not pay.
Borrower will pay Lender that amount. This includes, subject to
any limits under applicable law, Lender’s attorneys’ fees and
Lender’s legal expenses, whether or not there is a lawsuit,
including attorney’s fees, expenses for bankruptcy proceedings
(including efforts to modify or vacate any automatic stay
injunction), and appeals. If not prohibited by applicable law,
Borrower also will pay any court costs, in addition to all other
sums provided by law.
[Calsetta Cert. at Ex. A.]
On or about March 29, 2017, Lorraine Sluka and Robert Sluka each executed a
Commercial Guaranty in which they promised payment and performance of all indebtedness of
Data-Pages to Plaintiff:
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023
10/27/202312:19:30
3:39:24 PM Pg 8
2 of 64
6 Trans
TransID:
ID:LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
DEFINITIONS. . .
...
Borrower. The word “Borrower” means Data-Pages, Inc. and
includes all co-signers and co-makers signing the Note and all their
successors and assigns.
....
Indebtedness. The word “Indebtedness” means Borrower’s
indebtedness to Lender.
....
Note. The word “Note” means and includes without limitation all
of Borrower’s promissory notes, credit agreements, loan
agreements, guaranties . . . and all other instruments, agreements
and documents, whether now or hereafter existing, executed in
connection with the Indebtedness
....
GUARANTEE OF PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE. . . .
Guarantor absolutely and unconditionally guarantees full and
punctual payment and satisfaction of the Indebtedness . . . .
INDEBTEDNESS. The word “Indebtedness” as used in this
Guaranty means . . . all collection costs and legal expenses related
thereto permitted by law, attorneys’ fees arising from any and all
debts . . . that Borrower individually or collectively or
interchangeably with others owes or will owe Lender. . . .
....
Attorneys’ Fees; Expenses. Guarantor agrees to pay upon
demand all of Lender’s costs and expenses, including Lenders’
attorney’s fees and Lender’s legal expenses incurred in connection
with the enforcement of this Guaranty. Lender may hire or pay
someone else to help enforce this Guaranty, and Guarantor shall
pay the costs and expenses of such enforcement. Costs and
expenses include Lender’s attorney’s fees and legal expenses
whether or not there is a lawsuit, including attorneys’ fees and
legal expenses for bankruptcy proceedings . . . appeals, and any
anticipated post-judgment collection services. Guarantor shall pay
all court costs and such additional fees as may be directed by the
court.
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023
10/27/202312:19:30
3:39:24 PM Pg 9
3 of 64
6 Trans
TransID:
ID:LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
[Calsetta Cert. at Ex. B.]
Litigation and Summary Judgment
On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed the above-captioned Complaint against Defendants
Data-Pages, Inc., Lorraine Sluka, and Robert Sluka (collectively “Defendants”) alleging default
on the commercial loan. Defendants filed an Answer and Counterclaim to the Complaint on
November 28, 2022.
On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff served defendants with discovery requests, including
deposition notices for all defendants, which went unanswered. Hence, Plaintiff filed a motion to
compel the depositions of the Defendants which was denied.
On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment which was decided
on April 21, 2023 granting summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor as to all defenses except to an
issue regarding the Modification Agreement. A copy of the Court’s Order dated April 21, 2023,
is attached as Exhibit “A”.
Plaintiff produced corporate designee Theresa Calsetta for deposition on April 3, 2023.
Plaintiff again filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted and summary judgment
was entered against the defendants in the amount of $252,459.17 on July 19, 2023, however, the
Order did not address Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees. A copy of the Court’s Order dated
July 19, 2023, is attached as Exhibit “B”.
To put it succinctly, this matter has been extensively litigated due to the actions of the
Defendants and the filing of their frivolous counterclaim. Further, the Defendants’ failure to
abide by the discovery rules in addition to their lack of a meritorious defense has caused Plaintiff
to incur substantial attorney fees and court costs which continues to the present. Defendants
have filed a cross-motion to force Plaintiff to accept the judgment amount as satisfaction of the
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023
10/27/2023
12:19:30
3:39:24PM
PM Pg
Pg10
4 of
of664Trans
Trans
ID:ID:
LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
debt when they are fully aware of Plaintiff’s right, to which they agreed by executing the loan
documents, to recover attorney fees and costs related to the default of the loan agreement.
After the entry of Summary Judgment, Plaintiff has engaged in post-judgment litigation,
execution, and discovery as to the assets of the Defendants. Defendants have failed to provide
answers to the outstanding information subpoenas forcing Plaintiff to file a motion to enforce
litigant’s rights which is pending before for the Court.
At all stages of this proceeding, Plaintiff’s counsel has billed Plaintiff on an hourly basis.
To date, Plaintiff’s counsel has invoiced Plaintiff $18,215.90, the sum of $17,255.50 in
attorney’s fees and $960.40 in court costs. To date, Plaintiff has submitted payment to Plaintiff’s
counsel in the amount of $16,026.40, the difference being the invoices for which Plaintiff has not
yet remitted payment.
DISCUSSION
I. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF CONTRACTUAL COSTS AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES AS TO DEFENDANTS
“[C]osts shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party.” R. 4:42-8. “Attorney’s
fees may be allowed where the parties have agreed thereto in advance by stipulation in a
promissory note, power of attorney or other agreement or contract. . . And see Litton Industries
v. IMO Industries, 200 N.J. 372, 385-86 (2009), construing the agreement as providing for
attorney’s fees despite a minor ambiguity in the language.” Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J.
Court Rules, Comment 2.10 on R. 4:42-9.
In Hatch v. T & L Associates, 319 N.J. Super. 308 (App. Div. 1999), the Appellate
Division considered whether a note providing simply for “the Lender’s costs of collection,
including reasonable attorney’s fees,” allowed for an award of post-Judgment fees. The
Appellate Division reasoned:
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023
10/27/2023
12:19:30
3:39:24PM
PM Pg
Pg11
5 of
of664Trans
Trans
ID:ID:
LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
We need not consider the question of whether parties can expressly
provide for post-judgment attorney fees in their agreements. We
are of the view, however, that at the least, that obligation would
have to be clearly and specifically provided for, and it was not so
provided for here. See, e.g., Southwest Fid. State Bank v. Apollo
Corporate Travel, Inc., 360 N.W. 2d 668 (Minn. Ct. App.
1985) noting the general rule in Minnesota that post-judgment
collection costs are not recoverable under the typical contract
clause but holding that the rule does not apply where the borrower
had specifically agreed to pay such costs “at any time paid or
incurred” by the lender. We further point out that other
jurisdictions are in accord in denying post-judgment attorney fees
incurred in collection of the debt. See, e.g., Florida Pottery Stores
v. American Nat’l Bank, 578 So. 2d 801, 806 (Fla Dist. Ct. App.
1991). See also Torrey v. Hamilton, 872 P.2d 186, 187 (Alaska
1994) (court rule permits attorney fees only to date of entry of
judgment); Allison v. John M. Biggs, Inc., 121 Idaho 567, 826
P.2d 916 (1992) (court rule permits attorney fees only to the extent
requested by affidavit filed within fourteen days after entry of
judgment).
We are persuaded that there are sound policy reasons consistent
with the philosophy of the American rule for not construing the
typical attorney-fees provision as including post-judgment
services. We think it plain that a contrary construction would have
a substantial potential for abuse, for unduly burdening consumer
and other commercial transactions, for indefinitely delaying
finality, and for spawning a host of ancillary litigation.
Consequently, unless the agreement is express as to the post-
judgment obligation, we decline to construe it as imposing that
obligation.
[Hatch, supra, 319 N.J. Super. at 644.]
The Appellate Division further noted that the judgment creditor in Hatch had the
opportunity to foreclose on its collateral. Had it foreclosed, the award of attorney’s fees would
have been limited under to an amount less than it was seeking post-judgment, as R. 4:42-9(a)(4)
limits the attorney’s fees recoverable in a foreclosure. Ibid.
Hatch is factually and legally distinguishable from the case at bar. First, as this is not a
foreclosure matter, the limitation of R. 4:42-9(a)(4) is not a factor. More importantly, the
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023
10/27/2023
12:19:30
3:39:24PM
PM Pg
Pg12
6 of
of664Trans
Trans
ID:ID:
LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
attorney’s fees provision at issue was much broader than the provision in Hatch, and included
costs and fees related to any bankruptcies, appeals, and “any anticipated post-judgment
collection services.” Because the fee provision provides expressly for post-judgment collection
services, Plaintiff is entitled to recover for all post-Judgment costs and fees incurred as to the
litigation relating to the entry of judgment and post-judgment attempts for collection of said
judgment.
The language contained in both the Note and Guarantees regarding the Plaintiff’s rights
to recover all costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and legal expenses, incurred in
connection with the enforcement of the loan agreement is clear and unequivocal.
Furthermore, the Defendants asserted an unsupported counterclaim that has been
dismissed with prejudice and have caused Plaintiff to file multiple motions to force the
Defendants to simply follow the Rules of Court. There is no dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to
recover the expenses incurred in enforcing the terms of the loan agreement and the Defendants’
should not be rewarded for their deleterious actions and frivolous defenses.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests the entry of an Order for an award
of contractual costs and attorney’s fees.
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
/s/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER
______________________________
BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff
Dated: October 26, 2023
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023
10/27/2023
12:19:30
3:39:24PM
PM Pg
Pg13
1 of
of164Trans
Trans
ID:ID:
LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992
Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire - 026261996
1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034
(856) 779-0300
Attorneys for Plaintiff/ 44207
SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY
v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23
DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action
SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA,
PROOF OF MAILING
Defendants
The original of the within Notice of Motion has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior
in the County of Burlington, 49 Rancocas Road, Mt. Holly, New Jersey.
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
/s/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER
______________________________
BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff
PROOF OF MAILING: On October 27, 2023, I the undersigned, served on Steven C.
Schechter, Esq., attorney for Defendants, via eCourts, the following:
Notice of Motion; Brief; Certifications; Order; Proof of Mailing
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the
foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
/s/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER
______________________________
BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff
Date: October 27, 2023
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 14 of 64 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023
10/27/2023
12:19:30
3:39:24PM
PM Pg
Pg15
1 of
of564Trans
Trans
ID:ID:
LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992
Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire - 026261996
1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034
(856) 779-0300
Attorneys for Plaintiff/44207
SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY
v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23
DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action
SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA,
CERTIFICATION OF REASONABLE
Defendants SERVICES
1. I am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New Jersey and have personal
knowledge of the following facts and procedural history.
2. I am a partner and founding member of the Saldutti Law Group (“SLG”), located
at 1040 Kings Highway in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. I am duly licensed to practice law in the
courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey as well as the Federal
District of New Jersey, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Middle District of Pennsylvania, and
the Western District of Pennsylvania. I have practiced in the United States Bankruptcy Court in
New Jersey, as well as the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Middle District of Pennsylvania, and
the Western District of Pennsylvania. I have been a member of the Pennsylvania Bar since 1991
and New Jersey Bar since 1992.
3. SLG represents various creditors and financial entities throughout the State of
New Jersey, as well as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In this particular matter, we have
provided a copy of the statement of costs and fees regarding our representation of the Plaintiff in
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023
10/27/2023
12:19:30
3:39:24PM
PM Pg
Pg16
2 of
of564Trans
Trans
ID:ID:
LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
this instant matter. We submit this Certification in support of Plaintiff’s application for fees in
the above-captioned matter.
4. For background purposes, in 1984, I received a BS degree in International
Business and Business Administration from Villanova University. In conjunction with that
degree, I also received a concentration in Naval Science and received a Commission in the
United States Navy. I attended Villanova University on a Naval ROTC scholarship. As part of
my naval training, I attended the Advanced Electronics School in San Diego, California. In
conjunction with that, I attended the Surface Warfare School in Newport, Rhode Island, Nuclear
Biological Warfare School in Virginia, and Gunnery School in Norfolk, Virginia. I served as the
Electronic Warfare and Electronics Material Officer. In addition, I attended the Naval Justice
School in Newport, RI and undertook preparation as a non-lawyer legal officer. The counsel
provided training to assist the Commanding Officer and Squadron JAGs in administrative
investigations, non-judicial punishments and court martial proceedings.
5. Upon completion of my Naval Service, I attended Widener University School of
Law and graduated in 1991 and subsequently obtained a Judicial Clerkship with the Honorable
James J. Ciancia of the Superior Court of New Jersey. Judge Ciancia became the head of the
Administrative Office of the Courts and an Appellate Judge. During my clerkship, I engaged in
substantial review and processing of bank and creditor matters while overseeing the Special Civil
Part and Law Division motions. Judge Cianci was assigned to the Presiding Judge, Civil Part, as
well as Special Civil Part, in the Camden County Vicinage.
6. My practice began with the Law Offices of Deasey, Mahoney, Bender &
McKenna, LTD in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, centering upon civil litigation. I practice
exclusively in the Federal Courts, as well as both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023
10/27/2023
12:19:30
3:39:24PM
PM Pg
Pg17
3 of
of564Trans
Trans
ID:ID:
LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
State of New Jersey, primarily representing financial and creditor institutions. I have tried, to
conclusion, Federal and Bankruptcy cases in both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in the
State of New Jersey. I have also briefed and argued matters in the Appellate Courts of both the
State of New Jersey, as well as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I've also lectured and given
seminars on creditors matters. I am the Co-Chair of the Debtor/Creditor and Bankruptcy Bar of
the Burlington County Bar Association. I am a member of the National Creditors Attorneys
Association (NCBA), the Certified Fraud Examiners Association of Philadelphia (CFE), the
Pennsylvania Creditors Association (PCA), New Jersey Creditor’s Association (NJCA) and
National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders (NAGGL). I have been selected as a
“Top Lawyer” for the South Jersey. I am also a member of the Risk Management Association of
Pennsylvania, as well as the South Jersey Risk Management Chapter (RMA), the Secured
Finance Network (SFN), and Turnaround Management Association (TMA).
7. We have served as lead counsel in a successful recovery of a substantial fraud
scheme cases in the State of New Jersey, in Customers Bank v. Capital Financial Mortgage
Corp,et als. Docket No. CAM-L-1239-13, as well as Customers Bank v. Capital Financial
Mortgage Corp,et als., Docket No. DJ-120477-13 and Customers Bank v. Capital Financial
Mortgage Corp, Docket No. BUR-L-5-18. We have also served as Special Counsel to the
Bankruptcy Trustee. The undersigned counsel has also been appointed and served as a Receiver
by the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
8. I have conferred with multiple counsel in New Jersey and Pennsylvania
concerning the reasonable hourly rate of a managing partner in our position. As an example, I
have been advised that Lex Nova's managing partner charges $725.00 per hour.
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023
10/27/2023
12:19:30
3:39:24PM
PM Pg
Pg18
4 of
of564Trans
Trans
ID:ID:
LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
9. I participated in the litigation in the above-captioned matter, including discovery,
motion practice, and motion hearings.
10. At all stages since being referred this file, the undersigned firm has handled this
matter on an hourly basis. I have billed this matter at the partner hourly rate of $235.00 an hour.
My initials appear as “RS” on the billing statement.
11. The associate attorneys bill this matter at an hourly rate of $200.00 an hour.
Michael Hagner, Esq., billed at a rate of $200.00 an hour. His initials appear as “MH.”
12. The hourly rates charged are reasonable for the work performed and consistent
with our firm’s agreement with Santander Bank, N.A.
13. A true and correct copy of the Statement identifying all professional services
billed through September 22, 2023 by our firm to Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit “C”. A true
and correct copy of all invoices sent from our firm to Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit “D”.
14. Through September 22, 2023, our firm has provided professional services worth
$17,255.50 and incurred costs of $960.40. A true and correct copy of the statement of time and
costs entries on our firm’s billing software through September 22, 2023 is attached as Exhibit C.
The statement does not identify Plaintiff’s payments to counsel, as the statement is only a
summary of the services provided and costs incurred and generated from our case management
billing software.
15. Our firm invoices Plaintiff on a monthly basis. To date, our firm has invoiced
Plaintiff $18,215.90, the sum of $17,255.50 in attorney’s fees and $960.40 in court costs. See
Exhibit D. Plaintiff has not yet invoiced for the professional services provided after September
22, 2023.
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023
10/27/2023
12:19:30
3:39:24PM
PM Pg
Pg19
5 of
of564Trans
Trans
ID:ID:
LCV20233232780
LCV20233238755
16. To date, Plaintiff has submitted payment to Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of
$16,026.40 in payment for the invoices. The difference between the $16,026.40 of received
payments and the $18,215.90 on the statement of costs and fees attached as Exhibit C is the
services provided and costs incurred after June 23, 2023.
I certify that the foregoing statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information
and belief. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are willfully false, I am subject to
punishment.
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
/s/ ROBERT L. SALDUTTI
______________________________
ROBERT L. SALDUTTI, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff
Dated: October 26, 2023
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 20 of 64 Trans ID: LCV20233238755
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-22
BUR-L-001956-22
10/29/2023
03/21/2023
10/27/2023
04/21/2023
12:19:30
4:59:34
3:39:24Pg
Preview
BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 SALDUTTI LAW GROUP Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire - 026261996 Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992 1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 (856) 779-0300 Attorneys for Plaintiff/44207 SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23 DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action SLUKA, AND ROBERT SLUKA, CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT Defendants. OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO CROSS- MOTION OF DEFENDANTS Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire, hereby certifies as follows: 1. I am an attorney-at-law of the State of New Jersey and am associated with the law firm of Saldutti Law Group, attorneys for Plaintiff, Santander Bank, N.A. As such, I am authorized to make this Certification, and do so based upon personal knowledge. 2. The Court entered final judgment in favor of Santander Bank, N.A. and against all Defendants in the amount of $252,459.17 via Order dated July 19, 2023. However, said Order did not address the request made by Plaintiff for the inclusion of attorney fees and costs. A true copy of said Order is attached and marked as Exhibit “A”. 3. Furthermore, as clearly stated in the underlying loan documents, the default of which formed the claim asserted by the Plaintiff herein, contain unequivocal language that Plaintiff has the right to recover all costs of collection, including attorney fees and court costs, incurred with the enforcement of the loan documents. A true copy of the Certification of Theresa Calsetta, with exhibits, is attached as Exhibit “B”. BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 4. Plaintiff has filed a motion returnable on November 17, 2023 in the instant matter seeking to Amend the Judgment to include attorney fees and costs. A true copy of the filed motion is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. 5. Defendants’ cross-motion is disingenuous given their assertion of a frivolous counterclaim that has been dismissed with prejudice and defendants failure to abide by the discovery rules forcing Plaintiff to pursue motions both pre- and post-judgment has caused Plaintiff to incur substantial attorney fees which continue to the present. 6. Defense counsel’s self-serving dismissal of Plaintiff’s pending motion to enforce litigants rights as being unnecessary in his Certification of the Cross-Motion is emblematic of the Defendants’ behavior throughout this litigation. 7. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs of enforcing its rights as to the loan agreement at issue and the costs incurred in its efforts to recover the judgment entered by this Court and therefore Defendants’ Cross-Motion must be denied. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. SALDUTTI LAW GROUP /S/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER ______________________________ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE Dated: October 29, 2023 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 1 of 1 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 SALDUTTI LAW GROUP Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992 Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire - 026261996 1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034 (856) 779-0300 Attorneys for Plaintiff/ 44207 SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23 DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA, PROOF OF MAILING Defendants The original of the within Notice of Motion has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior in the County of Burlington, 49 Rancocas Road, Mt. Holly, New Jersey. SALDUTTI LAW GROUP /s/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER ______________________________ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff PROOF OF MAILING: On October 29, 2023, I the undersigned, served on Steven C. Schechter, Esq., attorney for Defendants, via eCourts, the following: Certification in Opposition to Cross-Motion; Proof of Mailing I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. SALDUTTI LAW GROUP /s/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER ______________________________ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff Date: October 29, 2023 BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 07/19/2023 12:19:30Pg PM1 ofPg 2 1Trans of 2 ID: Trans LCV20232123300 ID: LCV20233238755 SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22 DATA-PAGES INC AND LORRAINE Civil Action SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA ORDER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant(s). THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, as well as Plaintiff’s motions for replevin and to compel depositions, and the Court having reviewed the papers submitted and having heard oral argument of Counsel, and for the reasons set forth on the record and for good cause shown: 19th day of ____________________ IT IS on this ________ July 2023 ORDERED that summary judgment be entered against Defendants, Data-Pages Inc and Lorraine Sluka and Robert Sluka, and in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $252,459.17; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for replevin is hereby DENIED. While the Court previously indicated it was inclined to grant plaintiff’s motion for replevin, the Court has since determined that replevin is not the proper vehicle for the relief sought. Specifically, Court Rule 4:61-1(a) provides that a writ of replevin shall issue when the Court determines “that there is a probability that final judgment will be entered in favor of the movant.” Thus, replevin is prejudgment relief. Here, judgment has been entered. The appropriate course of action is for plaintiff to execute on that judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice. By way of supplement to the Court’s decision on the record, the Court notes that Defendants’ counterclaim rises or falls on the strength of the proofs supporting those defenses raised. As noted, the subject modification agreement is enforceable and as such the issues remaining before the Court pertain to whether there was a further modification that the plaintiff BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 07/19/2023 12:19:30Pg PM2 ofPg 2 2Trans of 2 ID: Trans LCV20232123300 ID: LCV20233238755 breached and whether the plaintiff violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in performing its obligations under the modification agreement. Defendants are unable to identify any terms of any supposed subsequent understanding reached, nor can Defendants point to conduct which deprived them of the benefit of the bargain they entered. The counterclaim fails. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions is DENIED as moot; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be deemed effectuated upon all parties upon its upload to eCourts. Movant shall serve all parties not electronically served within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. ______________________________ Richard L. Hertzberg, J.S.C. BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 1 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 2 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 3 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 4 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 5 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 6 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 7 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 8 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 9 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 10 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 11 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 12 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 13 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 14 of 14 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 10/27/202312:19:30 3:39:24 PM Pg 1 of 64 1 Trans TransID: ID:LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 SALDUTTI LAW GROUP Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992 Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire - 026261996 1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034 (856) 779-0300 Attorneys for Plaintiff/44207 SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23 DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA, NOTICE OF MOTION TO AMEND Defendants. JUDGMENT FOR CONTRACTUAL COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES TO: Steven C. Schechter, Esq. 36 Fairview Terrace Paramus, NJ 07652 Attorney for Defendants PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned will apply to the above named Court at 49 Rancocas Road, Mt. Holly, New Jersey, on November 17, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, for an Order to Amend Judgment to include contractual court costs and attorney’s fees upon the following grounds: The undersigned will rely upon the attached Brief and Certifications. A proposed form of Order is attached. SALDUTTI LAW GROUP /s/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER ______________________________ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: October 27, 2023 Pursuant to R. 1:6-2(d), the undersigned: (xxx) Oral argument is requested if opposition is received BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 2 of 64 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 10/27/202312:19:30 3:39:24 PM Pg 3 1 of 64 1 Trans TransID: ID:LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 SALDUTTI LAW GROUP Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992 Thomas B. O’Connell, Esquire - 031102008 1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034 (856) 779-0300 Attorneys for Plaintiff/ 44207 SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23 DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA, ORDER Defendants This matter having come before the Court by Brian J. Schaffer, Esq., from the law firm of Saldutti Law Group, counsel for Plaintiff, Santander Bank, N.A., and for good cause shown, it is on this ______ day of _____________________, 2023, hereby, ORDERED that: The sum of $18,215.90, representing $17,255.50 in attorney’s fees and $960.40 in costs, is added as additional sums to the Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Data-Pages, Inc., Lorraine Sluka, and Robert Sluka. ______________________________ J.S.C. ____ opposed ____ unopposed BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 4 of 64 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 10/27/202312:19:30 3:39:24 PM Pg 5 1 of 64 2 Trans TransID: ID:LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 SALDUTTI LAW GROUP Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992 Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire - 026261996 1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034 (856) 779-0300 Attorneys for Plaintiff/ 44207 SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23 DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA, CERTIFICATION OF BRIAN J. Defendants SCHAFFER, ESQ. I, Brian J. Schaffer, Esq., of full age, hereby certify as follows: 1. I am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New Jersey. I am associated with Saldutti Law Group, counsel for Santander Bank, N.A. (“Plaintiff” or “Santander”) in the above-captioned matter. 2. On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed the above-captioned Complaint against Data- Pages. Inc. (“Data-Pages”), Lorraine Sluka and Robert Sluka (“Sluka Defendants”) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging default on the commercial loan. 3. On April 21, 2023, the Court entered an Order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff as to all defenses except regarding the issue whether terms of the modification Agreement had been modified. A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order dated April 21, 2023 is attached as Exhibit “A”. 4. On July 19, 2023, the Court entered an Order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $252,459.17 but did not address BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 10/27/202312:19:30 3:39:24 PM Pg 6 2 of 64 2 Trans TransID: ID:LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees. A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order dated July 19, 2023 is attached as Exhibit “B”. I certify that the foregoing statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. SALDUTTI LAW GROUP /s/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER ______________________________ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: October 26, 2023 BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 10/27/202312:19:30 3:39:24 PM Pg 7 1 of 64 6 Trans TransID: ID:LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 SALDUTTI LAW GROUP Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992 Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire - 026261996 1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034 (856) 779-0300 Attorneys for Plaintiff/44207 SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23 DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA, BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION Defendants BACKGROUND On or about March 29, 2017, Santander Bank, N.A. (“Plaintiff” or “Santander”) entered into a $375,000.00 commercial loan with Data-Pages, Inc. (“Data-Pages”), the terms of which were memorialized in a Promissory Note (“Note”) (Calsetta Cert. at Ex. A). The Note provided: ATTORNEY’S FEES; EXPENSES. Lender may hire or pay someone else to collect this Note if Borrower does not pay. Borrower will pay Lender that amount. This includes, subject to any limits under applicable law, Lender’s attorneys’ fees and Lender’s legal expenses, whether or not there is a lawsuit, including attorney’s fees, expenses for bankruptcy proceedings (including efforts to modify or vacate any automatic stay injunction), and appeals. If not prohibited by applicable law, Borrower also will pay any court costs, in addition to all other sums provided by law. [Calsetta Cert. at Ex. A.] On or about March 29, 2017, Lorraine Sluka and Robert Sluka each executed a Commercial Guaranty in which they promised payment and performance of all indebtedness of Data-Pages to Plaintiff: BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 10/27/202312:19:30 3:39:24 PM Pg 8 2 of 64 6 Trans TransID: ID:LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 DEFINITIONS. . . ... Borrower. The word “Borrower” means Data-Pages, Inc. and includes all co-signers and co-makers signing the Note and all their successors and assigns. .... Indebtedness. The word “Indebtedness” means Borrower’s indebtedness to Lender. .... Note. The word “Note” means and includes without limitation all of Borrower’s promissory notes, credit agreements, loan agreements, guaranties . . . and all other instruments, agreements and documents, whether now or hereafter existing, executed in connection with the Indebtedness .... GUARANTEE OF PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE. . . . Guarantor absolutely and unconditionally guarantees full and punctual payment and satisfaction of the Indebtedness . . . . INDEBTEDNESS. The word “Indebtedness” as used in this Guaranty means . . . all collection costs and legal expenses related thereto permitted by law, attorneys’ fees arising from any and all debts . . . that Borrower individually or collectively or interchangeably with others owes or will owe Lender. . . . .... Attorneys’ Fees; Expenses. Guarantor agrees to pay upon demand all of Lender’s costs and expenses, including Lenders’ attorney’s fees and Lender’s legal expenses incurred in connection with the enforcement of this Guaranty. Lender may hire or pay someone else to help enforce this Guaranty, and Guarantor shall pay the costs and expenses of such enforcement. Costs and expenses include Lender’s attorney’s fees and legal expenses whether or not there is a lawsuit, including attorneys’ fees and legal expenses for bankruptcy proceedings . . . appeals, and any anticipated post-judgment collection services. Guarantor shall pay all court costs and such additional fees as may be directed by the court. BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 10/27/202312:19:30 3:39:24 PM Pg 9 3 of 64 6 Trans TransID: ID:LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 [Calsetta Cert. at Ex. B.] Litigation and Summary Judgment On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed the above-captioned Complaint against Defendants Data-Pages, Inc., Lorraine Sluka, and Robert Sluka (collectively “Defendants”) alleging default on the commercial loan. Defendants filed an Answer and Counterclaim to the Complaint on November 28, 2022. On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff served defendants with discovery requests, including deposition notices for all defendants, which went unanswered. Hence, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the depositions of the Defendants which was denied. On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment which was decided on April 21, 2023 granting summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor as to all defenses except to an issue regarding the Modification Agreement. A copy of the Court’s Order dated April 21, 2023, is attached as Exhibit “A”. Plaintiff produced corporate designee Theresa Calsetta for deposition on April 3, 2023. Plaintiff again filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted and summary judgment was entered against the defendants in the amount of $252,459.17 on July 19, 2023, however, the Order did not address Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees. A copy of the Court’s Order dated July 19, 2023, is attached as Exhibit “B”. To put it succinctly, this matter has been extensively litigated due to the actions of the Defendants and the filing of their frivolous counterclaim. Further, the Defendants’ failure to abide by the discovery rules in addition to their lack of a meritorious defense has caused Plaintiff to incur substantial attorney fees and court costs which continues to the present. Defendants have filed a cross-motion to force Plaintiff to accept the judgment amount as satisfaction of the BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023 10/27/2023 12:19:30 3:39:24PM PM Pg Pg10 4 of of664Trans Trans ID:ID: LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 debt when they are fully aware of Plaintiff’s right, to which they agreed by executing the loan documents, to recover attorney fees and costs related to the default of the loan agreement. After the entry of Summary Judgment, Plaintiff has engaged in post-judgment litigation, execution, and discovery as to the assets of the Defendants. Defendants have failed to provide answers to the outstanding information subpoenas forcing Plaintiff to file a motion to enforce litigant’s rights which is pending before for the Court. At all stages of this proceeding, Plaintiff’s counsel has billed Plaintiff on an hourly basis. To date, Plaintiff’s counsel has invoiced Plaintiff $18,215.90, the sum of $17,255.50 in attorney’s fees and $960.40 in court costs. To date, Plaintiff has submitted payment to Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $16,026.40, the difference being the invoices for which Plaintiff has not yet remitted payment. DISCUSSION I. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF CONTRACTUAL COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES AS TO DEFENDANTS “[C]osts shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party.” R. 4:42-8. “Attorney’s fees may be allowed where the parties have agreed thereto in advance by stipulation in a promissory note, power of attorney or other agreement or contract. . . And see Litton Industries v. IMO Industries, 200 N.J. 372, 385-86 (2009), construing the agreement as providing for attorney’s fees despite a minor ambiguity in the language.” Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, Comment 2.10 on R. 4:42-9. In Hatch v. T & L Associates, 319 N.J. Super. 308 (App. Div. 1999), the Appellate Division considered whether a note providing simply for “the Lender’s costs of collection, including reasonable attorney’s fees,” allowed for an award of post-Judgment fees. The Appellate Division reasoned: BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023 10/27/2023 12:19:30 3:39:24PM PM Pg Pg11 5 of of664Trans Trans ID:ID: LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 We need not consider the question of whether parties can expressly provide for post-judgment attorney fees in their agreements. We are of the view, however, that at the least, that obligation would have to be clearly and specifically provided for, and it was not so provided for here. See, e.g., Southwest Fid. State Bank v. Apollo Corporate Travel, Inc., 360 N.W. 2d 668 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) noting the general rule in Minnesota that post-judgment collection costs are not recoverable under the typical contract clause but holding that the rule does not apply where the borrower had specifically agreed to pay such costs “at any time paid or incurred” by the lender. We further point out that other jurisdictions are in accord in denying post-judgment attorney fees incurred in collection of the debt. See, e.g., Florida Pottery Stores v. American Nat’l Bank, 578 So. 2d 801, 806 (Fla Dist. Ct. App. 1991). See also Torrey v. Hamilton, 872 P.2d 186, 187 (Alaska 1994) (court rule permits attorney fees only to date of entry of judgment); Allison v. John M. Biggs, Inc., 121 Idaho 567, 826 P.2d 916 (1992) (court rule permits attorney fees only to the extent requested by affidavit filed within fourteen days after entry of judgment). We are persuaded that there are sound policy reasons consistent with the philosophy of the American rule for not construing the typical attorney-fees provision as including post-judgment services. We think it plain that a contrary construction would have a substantial potential for abuse, for unduly burdening consumer and other commercial transactions, for indefinitely delaying finality, and for spawning a host of ancillary litigation. Consequently, unless the agreement is express as to the post- judgment obligation, we decline to construe it as imposing that obligation. [Hatch, supra, 319 N.J. Super. at 644.] The Appellate Division further noted that the judgment creditor in Hatch had the opportunity to foreclose on its collateral. Had it foreclosed, the award of attorney’s fees would have been limited under to an amount less than it was seeking post-judgment, as R. 4:42-9(a)(4) limits the attorney’s fees recoverable in a foreclosure. Ibid. Hatch is factually and legally distinguishable from the case at bar. First, as this is not a foreclosure matter, the limitation of R. 4:42-9(a)(4) is not a factor. More importantly, the BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023 10/27/2023 12:19:30 3:39:24PM PM Pg Pg12 6 of of664Trans Trans ID:ID: LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 attorney’s fees provision at issue was much broader than the provision in Hatch, and included costs and fees related to any bankruptcies, appeals, and “any anticipated post-judgment collection services.” Because the fee provision provides expressly for post-judgment collection services, Plaintiff is entitled to recover for all post-Judgment costs and fees incurred as to the litigation relating to the entry of judgment and post-judgment attempts for collection of said judgment. The language contained in both the Note and Guarantees regarding the Plaintiff’s rights to recover all costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and legal expenses, incurred in connection with the enforcement of the loan agreement is clear and unequivocal. Furthermore, the Defendants asserted an unsupported counterclaim that has been dismissed with prejudice and have caused Plaintiff to file multiple motions to force the Defendants to simply follow the Rules of Court. There is no dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to recover the expenses incurred in enforcing the terms of the loan agreement and the Defendants’ should not be rewarded for their deleterious actions and frivolous defenses. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests the entry of an Order for an award of contractual costs and attorney’s fees. SALDUTTI LAW GROUP /s/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER ______________________________ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: October 26, 2023 BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023 10/27/2023 12:19:30 3:39:24PM PM Pg Pg13 1 of of164Trans Trans ID:ID: LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 SALDUTTI LAW GROUP Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992 Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire - 026261996 1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034 (856) 779-0300 Attorneys for Plaintiff/ 44207 SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23 DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA, PROOF OF MAILING Defendants The original of the within Notice of Motion has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior in the County of Burlington, 49 Rancocas Road, Mt. Holly, New Jersey. SALDUTTI LAW GROUP /s/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER ______________________________ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff PROOF OF MAILING: On October 27, 2023, I the undersigned, served on Steven C. Schechter, Esq., attorney for Defendants, via eCourts, the following: Notice of Motion; Brief; Certifications; Order; Proof of Mailing I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. SALDUTTI LAW GROUP /s/ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER ______________________________ BRIAN J. SCHAFFER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff Date: October 27, 2023 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 14 of 64 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023 10/27/2023 12:19:30 3:39:24PM PM Pg Pg15 1 of of564Trans Trans ID:ID: LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 SALDUTTI LAW GROUP Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire – 006871992 Brian J. Schaffer, Esquire - 026261996 1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034 (856) 779-0300 Attorneys for Plaintiff/44207 SANTANDER BANK, N.A., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY v. DOCKET NO. L-1956-22; J-99561-23 DATA-PAGES, INC., LORRAINE Civil Action SLUKA AND ROBERT SLUKA, CERTIFICATION OF REASONABLE Defendants SERVICES 1. I am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New Jersey and have personal knowledge of the following facts and procedural history. 2. I am a partner and founding member of the Saldutti Law Group (“SLG”), located at 1040 Kings Highway in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. I am duly licensed to practice law in the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey as well as the Federal District of New Jersey, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Middle District of Pennsylvania, and the Western District of Pennsylvania. I have practiced in the United States Bankruptcy Court in New Jersey, as well as the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Middle District of Pennsylvania, and the Western District of Pennsylvania. I have been a member of the Pennsylvania Bar since 1991 and New Jersey Bar since 1992. 3. SLG represents various creditors and financial entities throughout the State of New Jersey, as well as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In this particular matter, we have provided a copy of the statement of costs and fees regarding our representation of the Plaintiff in BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023 10/27/2023 12:19:30 3:39:24PM PM Pg Pg16 2 of of564Trans Trans ID:ID: LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 this instant matter. We submit this Certification in support of Plaintiff’s application for fees in the above-captioned matter. 4. For background purposes, in 1984, I received a BS degree in International Business and Business Administration from Villanova University. In conjunction with that degree, I also received a concentration in Naval Science and received a Commission in the United States Navy. I attended Villanova University on a Naval ROTC scholarship. As part of my naval training, I attended the Advanced Electronics School in San Diego, California. In conjunction with that, I attended the Surface Warfare School in Newport, Rhode Island, Nuclear Biological Warfare School in Virginia, and Gunnery School in Norfolk, Virginia. I served as the Electronic Warfare and Electronics Material Officer. In addition, I attended the Naval Justice School in Newport, RI and undertook preparation as a non-lawyer legal officer. The counsel provided training to assist the Commanding Officer and Squadron JAGs in administrative investigations, non-judicial punishments and court martial proceedings. 5. Upon completion of my Naval Service, I attended Widener University School of Law and graduated in 1991 and subsequently obtained a Judicial Clerkship with the Honorable James J. Ciancia of the Superior Court of New Jersey. Judge Ciancia became the head of the Administrative Office of the Courts and an Appellate Judge. During my clerkship, I engaged in substantial review and processing of bank and creditor matters while overseeing the Special Civil Part and Law Division motions. Judge Cianci was assigned to the Presiding Judge, Civil Part, as well as Special Civil Part, in the Camden County Vicinage. 6. My practice began with the Law Offices of Deasey, Mahoney, Bender & McKenna, LTD in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, centering upon civil litigation. I practice exclusively in the Federal Courts, as well as both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023 10/27/2023 12:19:30 3:39:24PM PM Pg Pg17 3 of of564Trans Trans ID:ID: LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 State of New Jersey, primarily representing financial and creditor institutions. I have tried, to conclusion, Federal and Bankruptcy cases in both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in the State of New Jersey. I have also briefed and argued matters in the Appellate Courts of both the State of New Jersey, as well as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I've also lectured and given seminars on creditors matters. I am the Co-Chair of the Debtor/Creditor and Bankruptcy Bar of the Burlington County Bar Association. I am a member of the National Creditors Attorneys Association (NCBA), the Certified Fraud Examiners Association of Philadelphia (CFE), the Pennsylvania Creditors Association (PCA), New Jersey Creditor’s Association (NJCA) and National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders (NAGGL). I have been selected as a “Top Lawyer” for the South Jersey. I am also a member of the Risk Management Association of Pennsylvania, as well as the South Jersey Risk Management Chapter (RMA), the Secured Finance Network (SFN), and Turnaround Management Association (TMA). 7. We have served as lead counsel in a successful recovery of a substantial fraud scheme cases in the State of New Jersey, in Customers Bank v. Capital Financial Mortgage Corp,et als. Docket No. CAM-L-1239-13, as well as Customers Bank v. Capital Financial Mortgage Corp,et als., Docket No. DJ-120477-13 and Customers Bank v. Capital Financial Mortgage Corp, Docket No. BUR-L-5-18. We have also served as Special Counsel to the Bankruptcy Trustee. The undersigned counsel has also been appointed and served as a Receiver by the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. 8. I have conferred with multiple counsel in New Jersey and Pennsylvania concerning the reasonable hourly rate of a managing partner in our position. As an example, I have been advised that Lex Nova's managing partner charges $725.00 per hour. BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023 10/27/2023 12:19:30 3:39:24PM PM Pg Pg18 4 of of564Trans Trans ID:ID: LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 9. I participated in the litigation in the above-captioned matter, including discovery, motion practice, and motion hearings. 10. At all stages since being referred this file, the undersigned firm has handled this matter on an hourly basis. I have billed this matter at the partner hourly rate of $235.00 an hour. My initials appear as “RS” on the billing statement. 11. The associate attorneys bill this matter at an hourly rate of $200.00 an hour. Michael Hagner, Esq., billed at a rate of $200.00 an hour. His initials appear as “MH.” 12. The hourly rates charged are reasonable for the work performed and consistent with our firm’s agreement with Santander Bank, N.A. 13. A true and correct copy of the Statement identifying all professional services billed through September 22, 2023 by our firm to Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit “C”. A true and correct copy of all invoices sent from our firm to Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit “D”. 14. Through September 22, 2023, our firm has provided professional services worth $17,255.50 and incurred costs of $960.40. A true and correct copy of the statement of time and costs entries on our firm’s billing software through September 22, 2023 is attached as Exhibit C. The statement does not identify Plaintiff’s payments to counsel, as the statement is only a summary of the services provided and costs incurred and generated from our case management billing software. 15. Our firm invoices Plaintiff on a monthly basis. To date, our firm has invoiced Plaintiff $18,215.90, the sum of $17,255.50 in attorney’s fees and $960.40 in court costs. See Exhibit D. Plaintiff has not yet invoiced for the professional services provided after September 22, 2023. BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-2210/29/2023 10/27/2023 12:19:30 3:39:24PM PM Pg Pg19 5 of of564Trans Trans ID:ID: LCV20233232780 LCV20233238755 16. To date, Plaintiff has submitted payment to Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $16,026.40 in payment for the invoices. The difference between the $16,026.40 of received payments and the $18,215.90 on the statement of costs and fees attached as Exhibit C is the services provided and costs incurred after June 23, 2023. I certify that the foregoing statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. SALDUTTI LAW GROUP /s/ ROBERT L. SALDUTTI ______________________________ ROBERT L. SALDUTTI, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: October 26, 2023 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 12:19:30 PM Pg 20 of 64 Trans ID: LCV20233238755 BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-22 BUR-L-001956-22 10/29/2023 03/21/2023 10/27/2023 04/21/2023 12:19:30 4:59:34 3:39:24Pg