A recent decision by the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division has upheld the dismissal of claims brought by an individual who sought to purchase property from a local church, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference by both the church and a neighboring developer. The case highlights complex issues in real estate transactions involving zoning requirements, competing offers, and municipal board approvals.
The complaint was filed by Ely Eddi in Monmouth County against Elberon Memorial Presbyterian Church, 1101 Investor LLC, and Colin Gaines. The appeal was argued on March 26, 2026, with the opinion released on April 8, 2026.
According to court documents, the dispute began when the church decided to sell part of its Long Branch property located in an R-1 residential zone. The goal was to use proceeds from the sale for building repairs. After initial discussions with Gaines—who owned two adjoining lots—the church entered into a contract with Eddi in February 2020. This agreement required Eddi to pay $725,000 for the parcel while obligating the church to obtain subdivision approval within six months.
Negotiations between Eddi and the church continued over several months until July 2020 when their contract was finalized. However, after this agreement was reached, Gaines expressed renewed interest in purchasing the same parcel. By December 2020, the church had negotiated an agreement with Gaines while also discussing amendments to its existing contract with Eddi.
On May 27, 2021, legal counsel for the church notified Eddi that it would not proceed with their sale and terminated their contract. The following day, Eddi filed suit seeking specific performance (compelling completion of the sale), breach of contract damages, and relief under claims including breach of good faith and fair dealing. He later amended his complaint to include tortious interference claims against both 1101 Investor LLC and Colin Gaines as well as a consumer fraud claim against the church.
Shortly after terminating its agreement with Eddi—in June 2021—the church formally contracted to sell the property to 1101 Investor LLC for $675,000. This new deal required 1101 Investor LLC to cover costs associated with obtaining subdivision approval.
During a nine-day trial featuring testimony from twelve witnesses and numerous exhibits, key legal questions focused on whether either party had breached contractual obligations or interfered unlawfully with contractual relations. On one trial day, Eddi withdrew his claim for specific performance; however, his request for monetary damages remained before the court.
The trial judge determined that while there was evidence showing Elberon Memorial Presbyterian Church did not fulfill its obligation to pursue subdivision approval or keep Eddi informed about progress as required under their contract—thus establishing some elements of breach—Eddi failed to prove he suffered damages as a result. Specifically, there was insufficient evidence that municipal authorities would have approved necessary variances or subdivision applications even if all contractual steps had been followed.
Expert testimony conflicted on whether such approvals were likely: defense experts argued that variance criteria could not be met due in part to competing offers from adjacent landowners like Gaines; plaintiff’s expert claimed otherwise but lacked persuasive supporting data regarding precedent or likelihood of success before local boards. The judge noted “no evidence was presented by either party of any history of subdivision applications resulting in undersized lots in the R-1 zone” nor proof that similar variances had been granted previously.
Regarding alleged tortious interference by 1101 Investor LLC and Colin Gaines—based on their negotiations during plaintiff’s pending contract—the judge found no legal authority barring backup contracts contingent upon prior agreements nor any evidence showing malice or improper conduct beyond lawful business negotiations. The judge observed that “1101 had a constitutional right to appear through Gaines … before [the] Board to object” given ownership interests in adjacent properties.
Ultimately, all claims brought by Eddi—including those under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act—were dismissed due to lack of proof regarding damages or unlawful conduct by defendants. The court also granted discharge of plaintiff’s lis pendens (a notice affecting title) but dismissed counterclaims brought by defendants against plaintiff for breach of good faith.
On appeal, Eddi challenged findings related primarily to damages calculation and legal interpretations concerning variance approvals and interference standards. However, citing established law deferring factual determinations about zoning matters to local boards rather than courts—and noting conflicting expert opinions failed to tip evidentiary balance—the appellate panel affirmed dismissal across all counts.
Attorneys representing Ely Eddi included Bruce D. Greenberg and Collin J. Schaffhauser from Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador LLC; Jeffrey A. Donner represented Elberon Memorial Presbyterian Church along with other respondents from Donner Law Associates LLC. The case is identified as Docket No. A-0070-24.
Source: A007024_Eddi_v_Elberon_Memorial_Presbyterian_Church_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
