A New Jersey court has upheld a default judgment against Integrity Builder and its owner, Brian Nogiewich, for failing to complete contracted repairs for Everlasting Strength Ministries, Inc. (ESM). The ruling, issued by the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division on October 21, 2026, means that ESM is entitled to recover over $116,000 in damages due to alleged fraud and breach of contract.
This decision impacts not only the parties involved but also sets a precedent for how default judgments are handled in cases where service of process is contested. It underscores the importance of proper service and the implications of failing to respond to legal complaints.
Background
Everlasting Strength Ministries, Inc. is a religious nonprofit organization based in New Jersey. In June 2022, ESM was introduced to Brian Nogiewich, who represented himself as the owner of Integrity Builder, a contracting company. ESM entered into two construction contracts with Nogiewich for repairs on its church facility, totaling $116,070.
Despite making substantial payments, ESM claimed that only minimal work was completed. The organization alleged that Nogiewich misled them about the project's status and failed to provide an accounting or refund after canceling the contracts in April 2023. ESM filed a complaint against Nogiewich, Integrity Builder, and I&B Enterprising, Inc., asserting fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
The defendants failed to respond to the complaint, leading to a default judgment being entered against them on August 27, 2024. They later sought to vacate this judgment, claiming improper service of process, which led to the appeal.
The Ruling
The court ruled to affirm the default judgment against Nogiewich and his companies. The judges noted that while the defendants argued that service was improperly executed because Nogiewich was not the registered agent for I&B Enterprising, the court found that he had effectively accepted service.
The court stated, "Defendants did not establish insufficient service of process and any meritorious defense."
The judges also emphasized that the default judgment was valid, as ESM had demonstrated sufficient evidence of damages. The court found that the defendants' claims of improper service and the need for a proof hearing were unsubstantiated, given that the damages were quantifiable and supported by documentation.
Impact
This ruling reinforces the principle that courts may uphold default judgments when proper service is established, even if the defendants contest it. It highlights the importance of responding to legal complaints and the consequences of failing to do so.
Moreover, the decision clarifies that defendants must provide compelling evidence to challenge service of process effectively. The court's affirmation of the default judgment against Nogiewich and his companies serves as a warning to other contractors and businesses about the legal obligations they have when entering into contracts.
What's Next
The defendants may seek further appeal to a higher court, although details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. This case may also prompt discussions about the standards for service of process and the responsibilities of contractors in New Jersey.