By Daniel Jude Maxwell, Esq., Maxwell, Tassini, & Gardner, LLC
A business lawsuit can put more than money at stake. Allegations of fraud and misconduct can threaten the reputation a business owner has spent years building. Answering those allegations requires a close examination of the agreement, the evidence, and what the law actually requires the plaintiff to prove.
In this New Jersey business dispute, Daniel Jude Maxwell, Esq. secured a trial decision directing judgment for the defendants on every count of the plaintiff’s complaint, together with a $10,000 award on their unjust-enrichment counterclaim. Maxwell represented Bodyworks Publishing, LLC and Barbara Jean Dowlen as defendants and counterclaimants.
The August 25, 2026 decision followed a nine-day bench trial in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County. The court heard six witnesses and admitted 79 exhibits encompassing thousands of pages. Judge Frank C. Testa, J.S.C. explained the result in an 85-page memorandum decision. The monetary award and allocation of funds are described below.
Facing a business lawsuit or a dispute over payment? Call 732-230-5003 and ask to speak with Daniel Jude Maxwell, or request a consultation.
What the court decided
The court’s conclusion was explicit:
“judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants on all Counts of Plaintiff’s Complaint.”
The decision also directed judgment for the defendants on their unjust-enrichment counterclaim in the amount of $10,000. The court attributed $6,000 to Dowlen’s contributions to the published book and $4,000 to expenses benefiting the plaintiff’s interest in the gym business. The defendants’ other counterclaims were unsuccessful.
The allocation of funds matters. Of the $35,000 already held in defense counsel’s trust account, the court directed $10,000 to the defendants and the remainder to the plaintiff. The defendants’ $10,000 judgment would be satisfied by that distribution. The decision provides for the award to be satisfied from existing escrowed funds. The plaintiff’s receipt of the balance arose from the court’s equitable allocation of the presale proceeds, even though judgment was directed against him on every count of his complaint. Read the court’s conclusion, pages 84–85.
How a publishing relationship became a business lawsuit
The dispute arose from oral agreements involving two book projects, Two Dumbb Gym Owners and Find Your Hill. The parties disagreed about their responsibilities, the use and distribution of book-presale funds, the value of writing and promotional work, and their rights after the relationship ended.
The plaintiff pursued claims including consumer fraud, common-law fraud, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference. The court also considered his breach-of-contract claim. He sought $48,331 in claimed damages, as well as treble damages and attorney’s fees and costs under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, plus interest.
For the defense, the case required addressing those claims while pursuing compensation for benefits Dowlen had provided. The court ultimately rejected the plaintiff’s claims and recognized a right to compensation under unjust enrichment.
Why the contract terms and evidence mattered
The parties had made oral agreements with limited terms. They had not adopted several provisions that later became central to the dispute, including exclusivity, a completion deadline, and requirements to segregate presale funds.
The court examined the agreements the parties actually made. It found no contractual breach by the defendants. It also found that the plaintiff had not breached the agreements, which is why the defendants’ recovery required a different legal basis.
For business owners, this is a practical lesson in both prevention and litigation. Clear provisions addressing payment, performance, termination, ownership, and the handling of customer funds can reduce uncertainty. When litigation begins, the exact obligations and the evidence of performance deserve careful attention.
The decision also illustrates why the sequence of events matters. In evaluating the fraud allegations, the court distinguished statements allegedly made when the relationship began from website and social-media material the plaintiff encountered later. That distinction affected whether the evidence supported the claims asserted.
Defending New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claims
A Consumer Fraud Act claim can raise the stakes of a business dispute because of the remedies a plaintiff may seek. In this case, the court concluded that the Act applied to the services at issue, then examined whether the plaintiff had proved his claim.
The court found that he had not. Its analysis addressed the alleged misrepresentations, the management of presale funds, the claimed financial loss, and whether the asserted loss was caused by unlawful conduct. It concluded that the plaintiff had not established a Consumer Fraud Act claim. In addressing the disputed proceeds, the court explained that “the parties were required to resolve a legitimate dispute over distribution of the presale proceeds in Court.” (Decision at 57.)
The lesson for a business facing similar allegations is that each legal requirement must be tested against the record. A claim involving disputed payments, dissatisfied expectations, or a failed business relationship still requires proof of the elements that govern that claim. Whether the Act applies, and whether a claim succeeds, depends on the particular transaction and evidence.
Pursuing compensation through a counterclaim
Defending a lawsuit also requires evaluating whether the business being sued has a claim of its own.
Here, although the defendants did not establish their contract claims, the court found that the plaintiff benefited from Dowlen’s work and expenditures. It concluded that retaining those benefits without compensation would be unjust and valued the unjust enrichment at $10,000.
The decision demonstrates the value of evaluating alternative grounds for relief. A contract claim and an unjust-enrichment claim have distinct requirements. The appropriate approach depends on the agreement, the benefit provided, the expectation of payment, and the available proof. The court’s award in this case was subject to the trust-account distribution described above.
Discuss your business dispute with Daniel Jude Maxwell
Maxwell, Tassini, & Gardner, LLC represents businesses and business owners in commercial litigation and business disputes, including contract and payment disputes, disagreements involving business partners, lawsuit defense, and consumer-fraud claims.
From our office in Spring Lake, we assist clients in Monmouth County and throughout New Jersey. Daniel Jude Maxwell handled the defense and counterclaims in this trial. If your business has been sued, a business relationship has broken down, or another party has retained the benefit of your work without paying, contact the firm to discuss your options.
Call 732-230-5003 and ask for Daniel Jude Maxwell, Esq. You can also request a consultation through our contact page.
Maxwell, Tassini, & Gardner, LLC
302 Washington Avenue, Spring Lake, NJ 07762
Case source: No. CAM-L-1704-23, slip op. (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Aug. 25, 2026) (unpublished trial-court memorandum decision). See pages 1–2, 24–27, 35–58, 68–72, and 77–85. Read the full decision on the New Jersey Courts website. This summary describes the August 25, 2026 decision.
Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case depends on its own facts and applicable law. This content is informational and is not legal advice. Contacting the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send confidential information through the website.