Decided: February 11, 1992.
EUGENE A. ENFIELD, SR. AND ADA A. ENFIELD, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
FWL, INC. AND FUREY W. LERRO, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
On appeal from Superior Court, Law Division, Cape May County, whose decision is reported at N.J. Super. at .
Gaulkin, Muir, Jr. and Landau.
[256 NJSuper Page 467]
Plaintiffs Eugene A. Enfield, Sr. and Ada A. Enfield appeal from a judgment of the Chancery Division, 256 N.J. Super. 502, 607 A.2d 685, entered following plenary trial, which awarded to them $6,000 in doubled damages plus attorney's fees, but denied their request for rescission of a condominium purchase made in 1986. There is no cross-appeal.
We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Callinan's written opinion filed March 14, 1991, noting especially his Conclusions that the remedy of rescission is neither mandated nor precluded by N.J.S.A. 45:22A-21 et seq;*fn1 that rescission is not the preferred remedy under the Act; and that it is not the appropriate remedy under the facts found by him.