Superior Court Hears Motion to Dismiss by Solicitor

COURT HOUSE – Judge Christopher Gibson of the New Jersey Superior Court Law Division heard arguments May 29 on a motion to dismiss with prejudice (i.e. cannot be filed again) related to a complaint filed by plaintiffs Rose James and Della Marie Di Pasquale against Doreen Corino and Marie Britton. Besides being in private practice, Corino is the solicitor for Wildwood Crest borough.
Plaintiffs allege that Corino fraudulently prepared and then later forged a will related to plaintiffs’ claimed rightful inheritance as heirs of deceased sisters, Teresa Dafler and Mary Di Pasquale.
Plaintiffs, (James, niece of Dafler and Marie Di Pasquale, daughter-in-law of Mary Di Pasquale) representing themselves without attorneys, in their complaint also allege that Britton (daughter of Mary Di Pasquale) as executrix committed multiple violations of probate law and that both defendants “created a seamless web of deceit” to cheat them.
Defendants’ legal counsel Louis M Barbone of Atlantic City for Britton, and Bassel Bakhos of Parsippany for Corino, both argued that plaintiffs’ complaint falls well outside the legal statute of limitations of six months for raising this type of legal action. They both asked the court to rule in favor of their motion to dismiss defendants’ complaint.
Plaintiffs’ argued that they could not file any complaint until they had engaged competent forgery experts and after receiving a copy of the will, both of which took many months. They also said they had neither notice nor knowledge of whether they should proceed without the input of the forensic document examiners and that it would not have been “reasonable” under the law to proceed otherwise.
“I really wanted to be very cautious and not move ahead without knowing if I had reason to proceed because I didn’t want to get sued myself,” said James.
Plaintiffs’ counsel pointed out that defendants could have filed and then used usual discovery provisions, which frequently can go for months if not years, to meet the filing deadline.
During the nearly one-hour hearing, Gibson gave ample time to both sides to fully present their arguments. He urged James to precisely outline the timeline as to what she heard, from whom and when regarding the will and her belief she was entitled to inherit any part of the estate.
James made reference to statements made to her by acquaintances that “it looks like your sister gets all the marbles” in support of her claim that fraud was effected in the preparation of the will. However, both Barbone and Bassel stressed that, “just because defendants argue that the ‘facts did not congeal’ until after a certain date is not enough to avoid invoking the law which states they should have filed within the allowable time limit.”
Gibson also heard lengthy arguing about the duties of executrix Britton to notify plaintiffs if they were indeed heirs and the time limits for doing so. Plaintiffs also claim that she was intentionally deceitful in failing to notify them of probate and the existence of the wills.
Gibson took note of the numerous interested parties on both sides that attended the hearing and admonished them to keep quiet so that all could hear. He also advised James to let Di Pasquale “speak for herself” as he observed James kicking Di Pasquale under the table as the latter gave her statement to “perhaps influence her,” as Gibson said.
Both sides to this dispute have acknowledged that the estate is, in reality, quite small. “Nevertheless, I will use utmost care in deciding this matter even if we are only talking about two dollars,” said Gibson.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Gibson said he would carefully review the submitted written pleadings which outline points of law as well as review the oral statements and arguments presented.
He gave no indication as to when he would rule on defendants’ motion to dismiss.
To contact Camille Sailer, email csailer@cmcherald.com.