Regarding the Radburn: New Law Enhances Voting Participation Rights in New Jersey Community Associations

Posted by on Jul 18, 2017 in Board Meetings, Elections/Voting, Legal Decisions, Legislation

By Jonathan H. Katz, Esq.

On July 13, 2017, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed into law P.L. 2017, Ch. 106 (S-2492/A-4091). The new law makes significant changes to the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act (“PREDFDA”), N.J.S.A. 45:22A-43 et seq., with respect to procedures for board elections and voting participation rights. Although the legislation comes in direct response to complaints over a specific association – the Radburn Association in Fair Lawn – it will affect most, if not all, of the estimated 7,000 community associations located in New Jersey.

As outlined in a January 2017 article, the historic Radburn was established in 1929 as a “Town for the Motor Age.” The Radburn boasts 18 acres of internal parks, a shopping plaza, an elementary school, and “other remnants of the founders’ ambitious attempt to create a self-sufficient community.” However, for the past decade, pressure has been increasing from residents seeking to change what they considered to be an outdated and secretive process that the Raburn utilizes to elect its Board of Trustees. Specifically, not every owner in the Radburn was granted the right to either run for or vote for its Board. These issues led to litigation and caused so much uproar that State Senator Robert Gordon (D-Fair Lawn) introduced this legislation to make the election/voting process more inclusive and transparent.

Now that this legislation has been signed into law, it will change not only the Radburn’s elections, but will also have implications for most of New Jersey’s condominiums and homeowners associations. In fact, most of these newly enacted provisions will trump every association’s current by-laws. The most relevant provisions of the new legislation are as follows:

Read More

New Jersey Appellate Division Closes the Door on Mortgagee in Possession Actions: Woodlands Community Association, Inc. v. Mitchell

Posted by on Jun 12, 2017 in Assessments, Collections, Legal Decisions

By Jonathan H. Katz, Esq.

Over the past ten or so years, community associations in New Jersey have struggled with delinquent owners who, for numerous reasons, have ignored their responsibility to pay their common expense assessments and, in some cases, abandoned their homes. Many of these homes sat (or still sit) vacant for years due to the fact that mortgage lenders did not – or for a few years were prohibited by the courts from – prosecuting mortgage foreclosure actions. Since we are only now starting to see some increasing movement with mortgage foreclosures and Sheriff’s sales, associations were required to find creative ways to collect these past due assessments.

When traditional collection methods failed, some associations opted to foreclose the assessment lien(s) on the delinquent homes. Some obtained authority to rent vacant homes with the assistance of a court-appointed receiver (rent receivers), when and if the courts were amenable to such remedy, which is not always the case. In other circumstances, where the mortgage lender changed the locks or winterized a home, associations sought to hold the mortgage lender responsible for the assessments, claiming that the lender was a “mortgagee in possession”; however, due to a recent published decision, that avenue to collect delinquent assessments has been prohibited in most cases.

On June 6, 2017, the Appellate Division issued a decision in Woodlands Community Association, Inc. v. Mitchell. That decision, which was approved for publication, held that a mortgage lender’s act of securing its interest in the unit (changing the locks and “winterizing” the unit) did not amount to possession and did not create a duty for the lender to pay the ongoing assessments due to the association.

Read More

Poetic Justice: Medford Lakes Colony Club v. Maida

Posted by on Mar 6, 2017 in Architectural Controls, Assessments, Legal Decisions

On March 2, 2017, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided the case of Medford Lakes Colony Club v. Maida, which dealt with unpaid assessments and the authority to remove a dock on association property. While the decision is unpublished (and does not constitute precedent), it made enough of an impression for Jonathan H. Katz to pen this brief write up:

In Medford a Club owned a lake,

Fees for its upkeep members make.

 

Docks on the lake were permitted,

As long as such fees were remitted.

 

Ms. Maida refused to pay fees,

Despite the Club’s numerous pleas.

 

So after the passage of time,

The Club removed the dock on Maida’s dime.

 

Maida objected but the Judge she directed,

The Club could remove the dock Maida erected.

 

So the moral of the story is not lost,

If you don’t pay your case will get tossed,

You’ll get dragged into Court,

For breach of contract or tort,

And you may have to pay all the cost.

You can read the Appellate Division’s much less poetic decision in Medford Lakes Colony Club v. Maida by clicking here.

For more information on this case or any other issue concerning your community association, please contact one of our Community Associations attorneys. For breaking news or updates on new blog posts, follow us on Twitter at: @njcondolaw.

Read More

NJ Supreme Court Decision Paves the Way for Condominium Associations in Transition to Recover Damages against the Developer and Subcontractors

Posted by on Aug 23, 2016 in Construction Defect, Insurance, Legal Decisions

On August 4, 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its decision in Cypress Point Condominium Association, Inc. v. Adria Towers, LLC, et al., which held that faulty workmanship by a subcontractor that causes property damage is a covered loss under the developer’s/general contractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy. The ruling holds that this consequential damage constitutes an “occurrence” under the CGL policy and, as such, may allow community associations to recover for water infiltration and other defective construction.

In this case, Cypress Point Condominium Association instituted transition litigation against the project’s developer/general contractor for water leaks and other construction defects, which caused damage to the units and common property. The developer’s insurance company argued that the Association’s claims were not covered under the various CGL policies obtained by the developer because the alleged faulty workmanship by the developer’s subcontractors did not amount to an “occurrence” and that the resulting damages did not constitute “property damage” under the policies.

Read More

In re Rones: A Debtor Cannot “Strip Off” or “Cram-Down” a Condominium Lien as Part of a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Action

Posted by on Feb 22, 2016 in Bankruptcy, Collections, Legal Decisions

By: Jonathan H. Katz, Esq.

The District Court recently delivered a rare win for condominium associations throughout New Jersey dealing with bankruptcy actions filed by their residents. The Court reversed a 2015 decision that allowed debtors filing Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions to “strip off” or “cram down” an association’s lien, which in most cases resulted in that the association only receiving six (6) months of assessments and having to write off as bad debt all of the remaining unpaid amounts.

Read More

Statute of Limitations in Association Construction Defect Cases Tolled until Transition from Developer Control

Posted by on Feb 10, 2016 in Construction Defect, Legal Decisions

By: Christopher R. Geary, Esq.

On February 1, 2016, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued an unpublished decision in The Palisades at Fort Lee Condominium Association, Inc. v. 100 Old Palisade, LLC, et al, (Docket No. A-4292-13T3). In Palisades, the Court reversed the Trial Court’s determination that the six (6) year statute of limitations on construction defects begins to run when the work is substantially complete. Rather, the Court held that the time period for a condominium association to bring claims against contractors who performed work on the association’s common property does not begin to accrue until control of the association is turned over to the owners by the developer.

Read More
Facebook