Anthony D’agostino and Denise D’agostino, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Respondents v. Ricardo Maldonado…

Summary

The Court held that a foreclosure-rescue transaction involving the transfer of a homeowner's property for nominal consideration, misleading documents, and a costly repurchase option constituted an unconscionable commercial practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. It further held that the loss of title and equity remained an ascertainable loss despite the trial court's later equitable restoration of the property, and that the trial court permissibly combined equitable relief with treble damages and an offset for defendant's contributions. The Court also rejected equitable estoppel and reinstated the trial court's judgment. Justice Hoens, joined by Judge Cuff, concurred that the Act applied and was violated but would have denied treble damages because plaintiffs failed to prove actual damages sustained.