Howard M. Schoor Associates, Inc. v. Holmdel Heights Construction Co.
343 A.2d 401 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral promise to pay the debt of another is not barred by the Statute of Frauds if the promisor's main purpose for making the promise is to advance their own personal pecuniary or business interests. This is known as the "main purpose" or "leading object" exception.
Facts:
- Alan Sugarman was an attorney for and owned over 18% of the stock in Holmdel Heights Construction Company, a development company.
- Plaintiffs, two engineering firms, were hired by Holmdel Heights for a development project, but Holmdel Heights became delinquent on its payments.
- To secure crucial new financing, Holmdel Heights urgently needed the plaintiffs to perform additional engineering work, but the company lacked the funds to pay for it.
- On April 14, 1970, Sugarman met with Howard Schoor, the president of the plaintiff firms.
- At the meeting, Sugarman orally promised to personally pay all of the plaintiffs' outstanding and future bills if they would continue their essential work for Holmdel Heights.
- To demonstrate his good faith, Sugarman gave Schoor a $2,000 check drawn from his own trust account, stating it was his personal money.
- Relying on Sugarman's promise, the plaintiffs continued to perform the necessary engineering services.
- Sugarman later sent another $1,000 check with a letter stating, "This is my money being submitted to you in good faith because I promised it to you last week."
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff engineering firms brought an action in the New Jersey Law Division (trial court) against Alan Sugarman to recover fees for professional services.
- The trial judge, sitting without a jury, found in favor of the plaintiffs and entered a judgment against Sugarman.
- Sugarman, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division, in a majority decision, reversed the trial court's judgment, with one judge dissenting.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a matter of right because of the dissent in the Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Statute of Frauds bar the enforcement of an oral promise to pay the debt of another when the promisor's main purpose in making the promise is to advance their own substantial financial and business interests?
Opinions:
Majority - Mountain, J.
No. The Statute of Frauds does not bar enforcement of the promise because it falls under the 'leading object' or 'main purpose' exception. This rule provides that when the primary object of a promisor is to serve some pecuniary or business purpose of their own, their promise is not within the Statute, even though its effect may be to pay the debt of another. To determine the promisor's main purpose, a court must examine all circumstances, with the nature of the consideration being of paramount importance. Here, Sugarman had a substantial pecuniary interest in Holmdel Heights as a stockholder and as its attorney who was owed legal fees. The continuation of the plaintiffs' work was essential for the company to obtain new financing, which would directly protect Sugarman's financial interests. Therefore, the consideration for his promise was mainly desired for his own personal benefit, making his oral promise an 'original' undertaking enforceable despite the lack of a writing.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'main purpose' rule as a significant exception to the suretyship provision of the Statute of Frauds in New Jersey. It shifts the analytical focus from formalistic inquiries, such as to whom credit was extended, toward a more substantive evaluation of the promisor's motivation. The case establishes a strong precedent that when a corporate insider, such as a shareholder or attorney, orally guarantees corporate debt to induce a performance that is critical to the corporation's survival and thus to the insider's own financial interests, the promise will likely be deemed 'original' and enforceable. This holding provides greater protection for creditors who rely on such promises from financially interested parties.
Unlock the full brief for Howard M. Schoor Associates, Inc. v. Holmdel Heights Construction Co.