DOCKET NO.

A-4021-13T2
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Stargell v. Snyder
Decided Mar 7, 2016

DOCKET NO. A-4021-13T2 with defendant, reasoning that she "took the
affirmative offense under the statute and . . .
03-07-2016
disavow[ed] herself of any right to a benefit which
MICHAEL STARGELL and JOANN YOUNG, she justifiably earned." According to the judge, by
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARGARET SNYDER, assigning her claim to the unpaid sick leave,
Defendant-Respondent. defendant had "cured any conflict" relating to the
unpaid leave and there no longer existed "any
Matthew S. Wolf, attorney for appellants. Timothy
pending indirect claim in th[e] matter."
J. Higgins, attorney for respondent.
On appeal, plaintiffs argue the motion judge erred
PER CURIAM in granting summary judgment because he
misapplied N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2, which bars a
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
"member of any board of education" from having
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
any interest in any claim against the board.
Before Judges Rothstadt and Currier. On appeal
Defendant disagrees, maintaining the court
from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
properly recognized the validity of the assignment
Camden County, Docket No. L-4651-13. Matthew
and correctly found that the claim did not prevent
S. Wolf, attorney for appellants. Timothy J.
her from taking office.
Higgins, attorney for respondent. PER CURIAM
We have considered the parties' contentions in
Plaintiffs Michael Stargell and Joann Young
light of our review of the record and applicable
appeal from the Law Division's March 24, 2014
3 legal principles. We affirm. *3
order, which denied their motion for summary
judgment, granted summary judgment in favor of We review an order granting summary judgment
defendant Margaret Snyder, and dismissed their de novo, applying the same standard used by the
complaint. Plaintiffs' complaint challenged trial court, Manahawkin Convalescent v. O'Neill,
defendant's eligibility to run for a seat on the 217 N.J. 99, 115 (2014), which requires summary
Pennsauken Township Board of Education judgment be denied if "the competent evidential
(Board) and her being sworn into office upon materials presented, when viewed in the light most
2 being elected in November *2 2013. According to favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient
the complaint, defendant, a former employee of to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the
the Board, maintained an outstanding claim alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving
against the Board for reimbursement of unused party." Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 59 (2015)
sick leave at the time she ran for office, which (quoting Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd.,
should have disqualified her candidacy. Defendant 219 N.J. 395, 406 (2014)); see R. 4:46-2(c). We
asserted that she was not disqualified because she "first decide whether there was a genuine issue of
assigned her claim to her adult daughter prior to material fact, and if none exists, then decide
being sworn into office. The motion judge agreed whether the trial court's ruling on the law was

1
 Stargell v. Snyder DOCKET NO. A-4021-13T2 (N.J. Super. Mar. 7, 2016)

correct." Henry v. N.J. Dep't of Human Servs., 204 outstanding issue. Despite those negotiations, the
N.J. 320, 330 (2010). "A trial court's interpretation Board denied her requests at several meetings held
of the law and the legal consequences that flow in December 2013.
from established facts are not entitled to any
Having been unable to resolve her claim with the
special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp.
Board, on December 27, 2013, defendant executed
Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
an assignment of her claim to her adult daughter,
The salient facts, drawn from the competent Lauren E. Farreny, who was married and not a
evidential materials, and viewed "in the light most member of defendant's household. According to
favorable to plaintiff, the non-moving party," its terms, the assignment became effective January
Lippman v. Ethicon, Inc., 222 N.J. 362, 367 1, 2014. A copy of the assignment was filed with
(2015) (citing Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of the Board on January 2, 2014, and, five days later,
Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523, 540 (1995)), were defendant was sworn into office.
substantially undisputed and can be summarized
Later in January, the Board convened to discuss
4 as follows. *4
payment of the assigned claim. Defendant did not
Defendant was employed by the Board as a school participate and Young abstained from voting. At a
nurse for twenty-seven years when, in March meeting, the Board approved payment of the
2013, she gave written notice of her retirement, claim, which was made by January 30, 2014.
effective July 1, 2013. At that time, defendant was
In the ensuing litigation, the parties filed cross-
advised of her entitlement to compensation for
motions for summary judgment. At oral argument,
unused sick leave time, and she filed a claim with
plaintiffs' counsel addressed the impact of
the Board for payment. According to defendant,
defendant having assigned her claim to her
she was entitled to $14,129 for reimbursement of
daughter. He asserted that the assignment, in
unused sick leave at the time of her retirement.
effect, did nothing more than change defendant's
While her claim was pending and prior to her claim from a direct one to an indirect claim, still in
retirement, on June 4, 2013, defendant filed a contravention of the statute. Counsel contended
nominating petition to run for a seat on the Board. that the only way defendant could have avoided
The election was held on November 5, 2013, and the statute's bar was by withdrawing her claim
defendant received the largest number of votes. 6 completely. The *6 motion judge considered the
She was elected with Young and another parties' written submissions and their counsels'
candidate. Stargell, who also ran seeking re- arguments, placed its reasons on the record, and
election to the Board, was unsuccessful. The entered an order granting defendant's motion and
Camden County Board of Elections certified the denying plaintiffs'. This appeal followed.
election results on November 11, 2013.
We begin our review by observing that N.J.S.A.
After the election, plaintiffs filed their complaint 18A:12-2 bars a member of the Board from
challenging defendant's qualification to be a maintaining a direct or indirect claim. The statute
member of the Board, claiming that defendant's states:
outstanding request for reimbursement of unused
sick leave was in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2.

In an effort to cure the alleged conflict, defendant

immediately began attempting to secure payment
5 in satisfaction *5 of her claim. She met with
various Board members and staff to resolve the

2
 Stargell v. Snyder DOCKET NO. A-4021-13T2 (N.J. Super. Mar. 7, 2016)

No member of any board of education where a choice can freely be made between
shall be interested directly or indirectly in board membership and maintaining a claim

any contract with or claim against the against the board" (citation omitted)).

board, nor, in the case of local and regional

Absent a contractual or public policy prohibition
school districts, shall he hold office as
against assignment, a claim against a board arising
mayor or as a member of the governing
from its contract with an employee may be
body of a municipality, nor, in the case of
assigned. See Aronsohn v. Mandara, 98 N.J. 92,
county special services school districts and
99 (1984) ("If the contract contains no prohibition
county vocational school districts, shall he
on assignment, such rights may be assigned in the
hold office as a member of the governing
absence of any public policy reason to the
body of a county.
contrary."). Assignable contract rights include "all
choses in action arising on contract . . . and the
[N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2.]
assignee may sue thereon in his [or her] own
However, the statute does not require automatic name." N.J.S.A. 2A:25-1; see also Aronsohn,
disqualification for any claim against a board. Bd. supra, 98 N.J. at 99 (noting that rights for breach
of Educ. of Sea Isle City v. Kennedy, 196 N.J. 1, 8 of contract are ordinarily *8 assignable). Once
16 (2008). In order for a claim to give rise to the assigned, "the assignee of a [claim] has a right to
statute's bar against membership on the Board, be paid what is due from [an] obligor once the
"the circumstances in the matter [must] obligor receives notice of the assignment."
demonstrate that the board member would benefit Midstates Res. Corp. v. Burgess & Fenmore, 333
in a substantial and material way from said claim." N.J. Super. 531, 536 (App. Div. 2000) (citing
Id. at 15 (citation and internal quotation marks Spilka v. South Am. Managers, Inc., 54 N.J. 452,
omitted). A claim involving "a request for specific 462 (1969)), certif. denied, 165 N.J. 676 (2000).
monetary relief . . . [causes] a substantial conflict
Applying these guiding principles, we conclude
7 *7 between a board member and the board"
the motion judge correctly determined that neither
warranting the application of the statute's
a direct nor indirect claim remained once
prohibition against serving as a member. Id. at 22.
defendant assigned her claim. Initially, we observe
The existence of a claim can prevent an elected
it was undisputed that any direct claim made by
board member from taking office1 or require his or
defendant existed only up until the time she
her resignation should the claim arise after having assigned it to her daughter, which preceded
been sworn into office. See id. at 13-15 (stating defendant taking office. In their pleadings and
that a claim can bar commencing "service in office submissions on summary judgment, plaintiffs
as a local board of education member" and that never challenged the bona fides of the assignment,
"having an inconsistent claim can be additional nor did they seek to amend their complaint to
cause for removal"). assert a claim contesting the assignment's validity.
1 Notably, the Commissioner of Education Rather, plaintiffs maintain the assignment merely
has held that if the claim is of a nature that created an indirect claim that continued to prevent
it can be cured before an elected board defendant from holding office. We disagree.
member takes office — i.e. through
We do not believe the mere fact that defendant
abandonment — it does not disqualify the
board member from seeking office. See Bd.
assigned her claim to her adult daughter, without
of Educ. of Barnegat v. Houser, 2007 N.J. more, was sufficient to support a finding that,
AGEN LEXIS 544 at *11-12 (N.J. Adm) 9 despite the assignment, defendant *9 maintained a
(finding that a family member's claim does disqualifying indirect claim against the Board.2
not "represent an incurable conflict . . .

3
 Stargell v. Snyder DOCKET NO. A-4021-13T2 (N.J. Super. Mar. 7, 2016)

There was nothing in the record to give rise to an was a member of defendant's household at
inference that the assigned claim, once paid, the time of the assignment or otherwise. ---

would inure to defendant's benefit, in light of the -----

uncontroverted language of the assignment.

Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a
Without any evidence that defendant's adult
true copy of the original on file in my office.
daughter was a member of her mother's
household, or was in some other similar financial CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
relationship, there could be no inference drawn
establishing that an indirect benefit to defendant
existed after the assignment of her claim.
2 Plaintiffs argue to the contrary, citing to the

Commissioner of Education's decision in

Houser, supra, 2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS
544 at *6. Quoting from that opinion,
plaintiffs emphasize the Commissioner's
reliance on the subject claim having
belonged to a family member. In so doing,
however, plaintiffs overlook the quotation's
modifying clause, which defined indirect
claims as those belonging to family
members who were part of the "board
members household." Here, again, the
record contains no evidence demonstrating
that defendant's daughter, a married adult,