A recent decision by the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division has upheld the dismissal of fraud claims brought by a car buyer against an auto dealership and a bank, highlighting ongoing concerns over transparency in vehicle financing agreements. The case centers on allegations that the buyer was misled into accepting a higher-cost loan than he originally intended, raising questions about consumer protections in automotive transactions.
The complaint was filed by Abiodun Toheeb Olaniwun on June 13, 2023, in Union County against Salerno Duane Auto Group and Ally Bank. Olaniwun, representing himself, appealed after his lawsuit was dismissed by the Special Civil Part on October 18, 2023.
According to court documents, Olaniwun sought to purchase a used Jeep Wrangler from Salerno Duane Auto Group using pre-approved financing from JPMorgan Chase Bank. He planned to supplement this with a trade-in of his current vehicle and cash. During negotiations with the dealership’s finance manager, Sal Zebardast, Olaniwun opted for several add-ons including GAP insurance, a Vehicle Service Contract with roadside assistance, and a Premier Choice Plus Benefit package. These additions increased the required financing beyond what Chase had approved.
As a result, the dealership arranged new financing through Ally Bank for a larger loan amount spread over more payments. Olaniwun accepted these terms and took delivery of the vehicle. However, within one week he filed suit alleging both defendants committed fraud. He claimed $20,000 in damages based on differences between Ally Bank’s loan payments and those he expected under his original Chase approval. Additionally, he accused the dealership of placing his signature on documents reflecting terms more favorable to itself and argued that his credit was negatively affected by Ally Bank.
Before trial began, defendants moved to exclude certain emails between Olaniwun and Chase regarding financing arrangements as evidence. The trial court agreed with their argument that these emails were inadmissible hearsay because no representative from Chase could verify them at trial. Other original documents related to the loan were admitted into evidence.
Olaniwun’s testimony described his efforts to secure pre-financing with Chase and subsequent interactions with dealership staff about changing purchase terms. He relied heavily on documents such as the GAP Addendum and Vehicle Service Contract naming Chase as lienholder to support his claim that fraud occurred when those terms changed without his full consent.
At the close of Olaniwun’s case-in-chief, Ally Bank requested—and received—a directed verdict dismissing it from liability due to insufficient evidence of wrongdoing as lienholder. The dealership made an identical request but was denied at that stage; however, after hearing further testimony from Zebardast explaining discrepancies in paperwork as clerical errors corrected during processing (except for one document), the court ultimately found Zebardast’s account more credible than Olaniwun’s.
The trial judge noted inconsistencies in Olaniwun’s testimony and concluded he failed to prove either fraudulent conduct or damages by a preponderance of evidence: “the lack of consistency in plaintiff’s testimony and his failure to prove his claims and any damages by a preponderance of the evidence.” Judgment was entered dismissing all claims.
On appeal, Olaniwun argued that key communications with Chase should not have been excluded as hearsay; that certain defense documents should not have been admitted; and that he should have been allowed to question another salesperson present during trial but not called as a witness. The appellate panel rejected these arguments after reviewing procedural rules regarding admissibility of evidence (N.J.R.E. 801(c), N.J.R.E. 802) and proper authentication (N.J.R.E. 901). The opinion states: “We defer to a trial court’s evidentiary rulings unless those decisions represent a misapplication… We will only substitute our judgment… if the ruling is ‘so wide of the mark that it constitutes a clear error in judgment.’”
The panel also noted procedural deficiencies in Olaniwun’s filings—such as missing legal arguments or references—and stated these alone could justify dismissal but chose instead to address substantive issues “in the interest of justice.” Ultimately they found no merit in any grounds for reversal: “We do not find merit in these contentions.”
Olaniwun sought $20,000 in damages but did not prevail at any stage; no injunctive relief or other remedies were granted by either lower or appellate courts.
Attorneys Kenneth B. Goodman (of counsel) and Adam W. Flannery represented Salerno Duane Auto Group and Ally Bank through O’Toole Scrivo LLC; Abiodun Toheeb Olaniwun represented himself throughout proceedings. The case is identified as Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division Docket No. A-2442-23.
Source: A244223_Olaniwun_v_Salerno_Duane_Auto_Group_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
