A New Jersey appellate court has issued a ruling in the case of Melissa Jamieson v. Devin W. Reilly, Docket No. A-0304-25, which centers around a real estate dispute. The court's decision impacts the parties involved, particularly Jamieson and her company, MelJams Properties, LLC, as well as Reilly and several of his business entities. This ruling is significant as it clarifies issues related to service of process and the awarding of damages in default judgments.

The dispute began when Jamieson and MelJams Properties filed a lawsuit against Reilly and his companies in July 2024. The plaintiffs alleged that Reilly had induced Jamieson into a joint business venture involving a property located at 1111 South 2nd Street in Millville, New Jersey. They claimed that Reilly misrepresented the sale price and the ownership of the property, leading Jamieson to believe she was the rightful owner. The plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including a declaration of ownership and monetary damages.

Initially, Jamieson and her company had filed complaints in other courts earlier in 2024 but had voluntarily dismissed them. The current case was filed in Cumberland County, where the plaintiffs alleged that Reilly had assured Jamieson that he would apply $100,000 of his own funds toward the purchase of the property. However, Jamieson later discovered that the property was still owned by Reilly's company, DWR Properties, and had liens against it.

The plaintiffs attempted to serve Reilly and his companies through substituted service, which involved posting the summons and complaint at the property address and mailing copies to both the business and residential addresses associated with Reilly. After several procedural steps, the court granted a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on May 9, 2025, awarding them $296,233.55, which included damages and attorney fees.

In response, Reilly and his companies appealed the decision, arguing that they were not properly served and that they had a meritorious defense. They claimed that the judgment should be vacated due to lack of notice and service, which they argued violated their due process rights. The court reviewed the evidence presented regarding service attempts and determined that the plaintiffs had made reasonable efforts to locate and serve Reilly.

The appellate court ruled on October 29, 2026, affirming part of the lower court's decision while reversing and vacating other aspects. The court agreed that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the final judgment regarding liability. However, it found that the damage award had been made without a proper proof hearing, which is typically required when unliquidated damages are sought. The court stated, "We conclude the court misapplied its discretion in not vacating the damage and counsel-fee awards and reverse that aspect of the vacation-motion order."

Furthermore, the appellate court vacated the charging order that was based on the damage and counsel-fee awards. It instructed the lower court to conduct a proof hearing to allow the defendants to challenge the plaintiffs' claims for damages and to reconsider the counsel-fee application with a statement of reasons for any award.

This ruling has significant implications for the parties involved. For Jamieson and MelJams Properties, it means that while they have established liability against Reilly, they will need to present further evidence to support their claims for damages and attorney fees. For Reilly and his companies, this ruling allows them an opportunity to contest the damages awarded against them, which they had previously been unable to do due to the default judgment.

The case illustrates the importance of proper service of process in legal disputes and the necessity of conducting hearings to substantiate claims for damages. It also highlights the court's role in ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their cases, especially in situations involving default judgments.

Looking ahead, the case may still have further developments as it returns to the lower court for the proof hearing and reconsideration of the counsel-fee application. The defendants' ability to appeal further will depend on the outcomes of these proceedings and whether they believe their rights have been adequately protected.