NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs Dennis and Maria Bracall1 appeal from the April 9, 2014 order for judgment in the amount of $50,000 entered in favor of defendant Southern Shore Properties, Inc. following a bench trial in the Law Division. We affirm.

We discern the following facts from the record developed at the two-day bench trial. In November 2000, defendant acquired property at 203 North Jefferson Avenue in Margate identified on the municipal tax map as Block 428, Lot 503. Defendant demolished the existing structure on the property and built a new two-unit building. Defendant intended to sell the units as condominiums. Defendant's attorney prepared "condominium documents[,]" including "a master deed and declaration of condominium for" the two units; "a condominium plan and survey of the property"; and "proposed bylaws to the master deed." Defendant did not record these documents "in the County Clerk's Office" because it wanted to sell the units before doing so.

In February 2011, plaintiffs agreed to purchase one of the condominium units from defendant for $700,000.2 Plaintiffs were represented in this transaction by Gasper Sparacio, "a licensed [real estate] broker associate."3 The Agreement of Sale (the Agreement) described the property as being located at 203 North Jefferson Avenue at a site identified on the tax map as "Block 428 Lot(s) No(s) 503.1."4 The unit was described "as a CONDOMINIUM-SINGLE FAMILY. . . residential dwelling." Maria testified she knew plaintiffs were purchasing "[a] condominium unit at 203 North Jefferson Avenue, in Margate."

Paragraph 17 of the Agreement stated:

Defendant gave the condominium documents to Sparacio before the Agreement was signed by plaintiffs. Sparacio testified he gave the documents to Dennis when the Agreement was signed by defendant. Sparacio also testified that plaintiffs knew that the condominium documents would be filed "sometime before or at closing," as is "a normal procedure" in transactions of this nature.

Plaintiffs gave defendant a $35,000 down payment when they signed the Agreement. Plaintiffs also agreed to pay defendant an "[a]dditional down payment" of $65,000 in "certified funds" at closing. Defendant agreed to "tak[e] back [plaintiffs'] mortgage note [and] mortgage in [the] amount" of $600,000 to complete the transaction. The Agreement contained no provisions concerning the municipal taxes plaintiffs would be required to pay after the closing. The closing was scheduled for October 11, 2011, and the Agreement provided that time was "of the essence."

Shortly before August 15, 2011, Dennis told Sparacio he was concerned that "the taxes on this unit were going to be much more than [plaintiffs had] anticipated[.]" Dennis therefore directed Sparacio "to see if [defendant] would take less of a deposit at closing. . . and he wanted [Sparacio] to see if [defendant] would take half at closing and postpone the other half six months."

On August 15, 2011, Sparacio sent an e-mail to defendant's president, Anna Berbecaru, stating that Sparacio had spoken to Dennis "all weekend about [Dennis's] concerns over the much higher taxes on the unit that were not anticipated at the time of [the] sales contract." Sparacio stated that plaintiffs were "happy with [the] unit" and wanted to close on the transaction. However, Sparacio told Berbecaru that plaintiffs wanted to pay half of the remaining down payment due at closing, and then pay the remaining balance within the six months after the closing occurred. Sparacio made no reference to the condominium documents in this e-mail.

Sparacio sent Berbecaru a second e-mail on August 22, 2011, advising her that Dennis was demanding "a reduction in what he has to bring to the table at closing." Sparacio also told Berbecaru, "As you know if [someone] wants to find a way to get out of any contract they usually can." In this e-mail, Sparacio mentioned for the first time that the condominium documents had not yet been filed.

On August 23, 2011, Berbecaru responded by e-mail, stating:

On August 28, 2011, plaintiffs sent a letter to defendant demanding "the immediate refund of [their] $35,000.00 good faith deposit."

One week prior to the October 11, 2011 closing, defendant advised the title company to release plaintiffs' $35,000 down payment to it. Maria and Dennis testified that they nevertheless went to the closing. However, Dennis admitted that he did not bring the certified funds necessary to complete the transaction, but claimed he had "a private backer" who would advance him the money. At trial, Berbecaru testified that defendant had the opportunity to subsequently sell the unit to another purchaser for $650,000, but decided not to do so.

On December 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed an eight-count complaint against defendant alleging, among other things, that defendant breached the Agreement because it failed to provide proof that the residence had been established as a condominium. Plaintiffs also claimed that defendant violated the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 to-20, and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Following a two-day bench trial, Judge Michael Winkelstein rendered a thorough and comprehensive oral opinion. The judge found Sparacio's and Berbecaru's testimony "for the most part much more credible that that of. . . plaintiffs." Judge Winkelstein stated that the parties had clearly intended "from the four corners of the document itself without any reference to any outside testimony" to respectively purchase and sell a condominium. He further found that the condominium documents, including a master deed, legal description of the property, survey, condominium plan, and proposed bylaws were provided to

Dennis contemporaneously with the fully-executed contract. Additionally, he determined that the Agreement did not require the condominium documents to be filed prior to the closing date.

Judge Winkelstein ruled that plaintiffs' August 28, 2011 letter terminated the contract, relieving defendant of its obligation to attend the closing. He also found that "[defendant] would have [complied] with the obligations under the contract and delivered" the condominium unit at the time of closing had it not been for plaintiffs' breach. The judge concluded that "plaintiffs wanted out of this deal when they realized the taxes would be too high, when they realized they weren't going to have enough money to close. . .." Finding that Dennis's claim that he had "a private backer" ready to give him the $65,000 needed to close was "a fantasy," the judge stated that plaintiffs' appearance at the closing "was, in fact, a sham simply to be able to proceed with a lawsuit."

With respect to plaintiffs' cause of action under the CFA, Judge Winkelstein held that the inclusion of the block number and lot number for the condominium property when the documents had not been recorded or filed at the time of the Agreement did not have the potential to mislead because plaintiffs "knew ahead of time that the condominium documents would not be recorded. . . until closer to settlement" and because Sparacio had the condominium documents at all times. As a result, Judge Winkelstein held that plaintiffs did not have a cause of action under the CFA.

Finally, the judge entered judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiffs in the amount of $50,000. This amount represented the difference between the $700,000 purchase price set forth in the Agreement and the $650,000 Berbecaru testified defendant could have received had it sold the unit to the subsequent proposed buyer. This appeal followed.

With one exception, plaintiffs raise the same contentions on appeal that they unsuccessfully presented at trial. Plaintiffs again assert that Judge Winkelstein erred by permitting testimony from the parties and Sparacio to aid in the interpretation of the Agreement. They also assert that defendant violated the CFA because the Agreement described the unit as a condominium when the paperwork for that designation had not yet been filed, and plaintiffs argue that their August 22 and 23, 2011 e-mails should have been construed as a request for assurances that defendant would perform under the Agreement, rather than as a breach of the contract on their part. Finally, plaintiffs argue for the first time on appeal that defendant violated N.J.S.A. 46:8B-34 by failing to "identify and include in the. . . Agreement the current fees and dues associated with the. . . property."

We review the factual findings made by a trial judge to determine whether they are "supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). Such findings made by a judge in a bench trial "should not be disturbed `unless they are so wholly insupportable as to result in a denial of justice.'" Id. at 483-84 (quoting Greenfield v. Dusseault, 60 N.J.Super. 436, 444 (App. Div.), aff'd o.b., 33 N.J. 78 (1960)). Factual findings that "are substantially influenced by [the judge's] opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the `feel' of the case" enjoy deference on appeal. State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964).

After carefully reviewing the record developed by the parties before Judge Winkelstein, we reject plaintiffs' arguments and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Winkelstein in his oral opinion dated February 26, 2014. We make the following brief comments concerning plaintiffs' argument concerning N.J.S.A. 46:8B-34.

N.J.S.A. 46:8B-34 states that "[t]he developer shall separately state in the selling price of a unit in a condominium the full membership fee in the condominium association and all recreational membership fees." Plaintiffs correctly point out that the Agreement does not identify any condominium fees associated with the property.

However, plaintiffs did not raise this argument before Judge Winkelstein. While plaintiffs' complaint included numerous counts, plaintiffs never pled a violation of N.J.S.A. 46:8B-34. At trial, Sparacio was the only witness to testify on the topic of condominium association fees. Plaintiffs' attorney inquired as to whether Sparacio was aware of the requirements of the New Jersey Condominium Act. Sparacio replied that he had no knowledge of the statutory requirements. Plaintiffs' counsel also briefly mentioned the New Jersey Condominium Act in his closing. Counsel stated, "[T]he condominium law does — the act itself requires that certain things be included, including the condominium fees for the unit owner, etcetera." Other than those two instances, however, condominium fees were not discussed at trial. Indeed, it is unclear from the record whether there were any condominium fees associated with the property.

We will ordinarily decline consideration of an issue not properly raised before the trial court, unless the jurisdiction of the court is implicated or the matter concerns an issue of great public importance. Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 226-27 (2014) (citing Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973)). Neither situation exists here and, because plaintiffs did not raise this issue at trial, the record is plainly insufficient to permit appellate review. Therefore, we decline to consider plaintiffs' contention on this point.

Affirmed.