FAQs: What Is the $2M Gillian-Mita Consulting Agreement and What Ethical Questions Does It Really Raise for the Public?
The story of how the $2M agreement emerged
What began as a $1.5 million loan for a failed amusement park venture in Sea Isle City over a decade and a half ago has spiraled into a tangled legal drama involving Ocean City Mayor Jay Gillian, developer Eustace Mita, bankruptcy court, and the fate of Wonderland Pier. After Gillian defaulted on the loan — a debt backed by his parents’ home — financial troubles mounted, eventually threatening both his family and the iconic boardwalk property.
When Mita purchased Wonderland in 2021, he awarded Gillian a consulting agreement reportedly worth $2 million, money Gillian pledged to settle old debts with the bank and his parents. The agreement was not disclosed to the public at that time. But when Mita refused to make payments, claiming Gillian owed him millions elsewhere, the dispute exploded into lawsuits, bankruptcy proceedings, and a courtroom fight over who controls the multimillion-dollar agreement, which according to the September 2022 Forbearance Agreement and Collateral Assignment — both signed by Jay — expressly recognize the Consulting Agreement as a live obligation generating $16,666.67 monthly payments. Through this dispute, the agreement became available via the court. Paragraph 7 of the Consulting Agreement states that it may not be terminated by the Company or Eustace and may only be changed by a written agreement signed by the Parties. At this time, there has been no known termination in writing by both parties.
1. Where can these documents be found?
The motion and all exhibits (loan documents, judgment, Consulting Agreement, levy, Forbearance Agreement, Collateral Assignment, Settlement Agreement, Restated Assignment of Judgment, and proposed order) are public filings in Case No. 25-22827-JNP, available through the Bankruptcy Court's electronic filing system at njb.uscourts.gov. The agreement itself is also available to view HERE.
2. It’s not illegal, but does that mean it is okay in this situation?
The central question is whether a sitting mayor can objectively participate in matters involving a developer who owes him — or is contractually obligated to pay him — $2 million over 10 years. The issue becomes more serious because the consulting agreement coincided with Mita’s redevelopment interests in Ocean City, including projects requiring city approvals and political influence. Two potential issues include:
Financial Conflict. The mayor has been deeply involved in the efforts around Mita’s proposal to build a high rise on the boardwalk. Given the clear financial ties between the two, that involvement is potentially unethical and even potentially unlawful. The mayor should have recused himself from all discussions.
Breach of Trust. The mayor and Mita put out a press release when the park was sold, claiming that they would invest in the park to make it great again. However, the documents they signed tell a different story. They include a $2M payment for Gillian that creates an incentive for Gillian to close the park down.
People have the right to ask about this because New Jersey ethics law is not limited to actual corruption; it also addresses the appearance of a conflict. Public officials are expected to avoid situations where private financial interests could reasonably undermine public trust. Residents are entitled to know whether government decisions are being shaped by public interest or personal financial entanglements. And Ocean City residents may rightfully wonder whether the unusual terms of the previously hidden agreement created an incentive for the park to close rather than be revived, despite what was being publicly said.
3. How typical is an agreement like this?
While consulting agreements are common in the sale of a business, they are usually included so that the new buyer can secure the knowledge of the current operator and their help in running the acquired business. There are several unusual provisions in this agreement, including:
Payments delayed until after Wonderland closed (not for expertise to run the business)
No defined consulting duties, especially unusual for a contract of $2M
Services to be agreed upon later
Payments to continue even upon Gillian's death
Beneficiaries not required to perform any services
These terms raise questions about whether the agreement was truly for consulting work or functioned more like deferred compensation tied to transferring control of Wonderland.
People have the right to ask because transparency matters when elected officials receive large private payments from parties seeking influence in the same municipality where they govern. A $2 million contract with unclear obligations and nonstandard provisions naturally invites scrutiny about what exactly is being purchased.
4. Gillian and Mita have since said the agreement is null and void, but…
The documents filed in bankruptcy court do not support that claim. Several points are worth separating:
The agreement contains a contingency clause, but that contingency was satisfied. Paragraph 1 of the Consulting Agreement states that Mita's and 600 Boardwalk's obligation to retain Jay as a consultant was “subject to and contingent on” the Company's purchase of the real estate and certain business assets from Gilamco, Inc. The agreement provides that if the purchase and sale was not completed, the Consulting Agreement would be null and void.
That sale was completed — 600 Boardwalk acquired the Wonderland property from Gilamco, and Gilamco then leased the property back from the Company through December 31, 2023. The contingency triggering nullity did not occur.
The Bank, the Trust, Mita, and the courts have all treated the agreement as valid and enforceable. The Bank perfected a levy against the consulting payments in April 2024. Mita was served and did not respond by claiming the agreement was null. The September 2022 Forbearance Agreement and Collateral Assignment — both signed by Jay — expressly recognize the Consulting Agreement as a live obligation generating $16,666.67 monthly payments. The settlement between the Bank and Patricia Gillian, the Restated Assignment of Judgment, and the pending state court litigation all proceed on the premise that the agreement is valid.
Mita's defense in state court is non-payment, not nullity.Mita and 600 Boardwalk answered the state court complaint and denied liability — they are refusing to pay the Trust and the Bank, but the bankruptcy motion does not indicate that Mita has taken the position that the underlying agreement itself is void. If Mita believed the agreement were null, he presumably would make that defense; he has not asserted it.
The agreement also cannot be unilaterally terminated. Paragraph 7 of the Consulting Agreement states that it may not be terminated by the Company or Eustace and may only be changed by a written agreement signed by the Parties. Jay cannot make the agreement disappear by saying so, and neither can Mita.
5. Why was the agreement not publicly disclosed earlier, and who knew about it?
While the documents were signed five years ago, their existence was not known to the public then. The documents only became available when the lawsuits began and they were tucked into court documents filed behind a pay wall. Questions are now being raised about whether city officials, including the city solicitor or other insiders, knew about the agreement well before the public did.
People have the right to ask about this because disclosure is foundational to public accountability. Citizens cannot evaluate conflicts of interest if financial relationships remain effectively hidden. The issue is not whether the documents technically existed somewhere in court filings — it is whether the public had meaningful access to information necessary to evaluate the conduct of elected officials.
6. Since the mayor doesn’t vote on zoning issues, is there really a conflict of interest?
Supporters of the mayor argue that he does not directly vote on zoning matters, so there is no conflict of interest; however the mayor appoints the majority of the planning board. The administration also has tremendous influence given their resources and relationships. For this reason NJ courts have found that an official with a financial conflict can still taint a vote, even if that official does not have an official vote.
People have the right to ask about this because democratic accountability requires confidence that development decisions are fair and impartial. If a mayor has significant financial ties to a developer involved in major city projects, residents are entitled to question whether recusal was ethically necessary to preserve public trust in the process.
Timeline
2009 — Jay Gillian borrows $1.5 million from First Bank of Sea Isle; parents’ home used as collateral.
February 14, 2021 — Jay Gillian signs $2 million consulting agreement with Eustace Mita / 600 Boardwalk LLC.
February 16, 2021 — Consulting agreement notarized.
March 30, 2021 — Mita and Gillian publicly announce partnership to revive Wonderland.
2021–2024 — Wonderland operates under leaseback arrangement after sale.
September 2022 — Forbearance Agreement and Collateral Assignment signed; consulting payments pledged to bank.
September 2023 — Bank sues Jay Gillian, Michele Gillian, and Gilamco over defaults.
March 18, 2024 — Default judgment entered against Gillian parties for approximately $595,619.
April 30, 2024 — Sheriff serves levy on Mita seeking consulting payments.
September 2024 — Patricia Gillian pays $480,000 to settle foreclosure involving family home.
December 2024 — Mayor Gillian publicly states regarding Mita project: “I’m not benefiting from anything.”
January 1, 2025 — Consulting payments allegedly scheduled to begin following lease extension.
January 2025 — Trust and Bank formally demand payments from Mita; Mita refuses.
August 2025 — Patricia Gillian Revocable Trust files lawsuit against Mita and 600 Boardwalk.
December 3, 2025 — Jay and Michele Gillian file Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
December 2025 — Consulting agreement listed as asset in bankruptcy filings.