In the recent Appellate Division opinion in Estate of Billotti v. Springsteen, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2094 (App. Div. Sept. 15, 2026), the Court reviewed whether alleged statements by Bruce Springsteen and his agents to a car owner for future use of photos of a classic car were sufficiently reliable for the plaintiff to recover on his claims of failed payment.
In the Fall of 2021, two photographers contacted Louis Billotti, Sr., the owner of a 1967 Pontiac GTO, to use his car in two Monmouth County photo shoots for a price of $750 and $450, respectively. Billotti, Sr. and the photographers agreed over phone and text with no written contracts, and Billotti, Sr. was paid in full. Billotti, Sr. died about a year later. His son, Louis Billotti, Jr. became the estate’s executor and sole beneficiary.
Billotti, Sr. did not learn Bruce Springsteen was the subject of the shoot until he arrived. Months after his death, the car appeared on a Springsteen album cover and various merchandising. Billotti, Jr., on the estate’s behalf, sued, claiming Springsteen and an agent had promised Billotti, Sr. additional money for future use of the photos. The trial court had to determine whether Springsteen’s alleged promises were admissible at trial for a jury to determine whether the parties had an agreement.
Billotti alleged that his father told him about the conversations. The first one with Springsteen in which he asked what would happen if the car appeared on an album cover. Springsteen allegedly answered that he had “people who deal with that,” implying a contract would follow, and the agent alleged promised such a contract. In his deposition, though initially not recalling the conversation, Springsteen acknowledged he spoke with Billotti, Sr., but he denied making any promises. Depositions of various other people who had alleged knowledge of the situation failed to disclose any first-hand knowledge of any agreement or anyone to whom Billotti, Sr. had shared what Springsteen had said, beyond his son. Two close friends submitted two similar affidavits: one saying he suggested to Billotti, Sr. to get a contract and another, Billotti, Sr.’s own attorney, denied ever hearing it. Springsteen moved both to exclude the statements as hearsay and for summary judgment. The trial court granted both. The Appellate Division affirmed.
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove what that statement establishes is true. Because of the inherent unreliability of statements made out of court under certain circumstances, preventing the inclusion of hearsay statements is meant to ensure the accuracy of the jury’s role in determining a case’s facts by leaving out “inherently untrustworthy statements.” The statements here were not only hearsay, they were double hearsay or “hearsay within hearsay,” Springsteen’s alleged statement to Billotti, Sr., nested inside Billotti, Sr.’s alleged statement to his son. Under New Jersey’s evidence rules, both statements must fall under an exception in order for a jury to hear either statement.
Next, the Court unpacked the two hearsay statements, both of which must fall under an exception to be admissible. The first, Springsteen or his agent’s alleged statement to Billotti, was an admission of a party opponent (or his agent). Because the alleged statement by Springsteen that he would pay Billotti, Sr. for the future use of his car on an album cover was an alleged admission to payment against Springsteen’s interests, it satisfied the first step of resolving the double hearsay puzzle. The second statement, Billotti, Sr.’s relation to Billotti of what Springsteen said, did not fare as well. It did not fall under a clear exception set forth in the rules. Billotti argued that, because of his father’s death, it should be admitted for its inherent trustworthiness. To allow a statement to be sufficiently trustworthy, it must be made in good faith, with personal knowledge, and under trustworthy circumstances. To that end, Billotti said that his father’s vague suggestion to various people that he would make a lot of money from the photos implicated the trustworthiness of his claims. However, the Court found that an unknown agent’s unknown words to the decedent were not trustworthy, or sufficiently trustworthy to allow them to be heard by a jury. Further, the terms were indefinite, without any written contract or even a confirming text or other written memorialization of the agreement. Thereby upholding the trial court’s barring of them, and ultimately granting summary judgment.
The key takeaway is memorializing agreements of whatever scope, size, or shape. Even a contemporaneous text message agreeing to the fact of the agreement would go far towards either establishing a meeting of the minds or, at least, the trustworthiness as to claims that the agreement existed in the first place.