Classic Condo Cases: Siddons v. Cook and Country Place Condominium Association – The Duty to Warn

Posted by on Aug 7, 2018 in Classic Condo Cases, Legal Decisions, Safety

By Jonathan H. Katz, Esq.

Hill Wallack LLP’s “Classic Condo Cases” is a continuing series in which we look back at precedential Court opinions and discuss why each decision is important for community associations throughout New Jersey.

Siddons v. Cook and Country Place Condominium Association, 382 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2005).

Quick Take: Community associations have a duty to warn owners of potential, recurring conditions/deficiencies that are known to the association and may cause damage, even if those conditions/deficiencies are solely within a unit/home and not part of the common elements.

Just the Facts: Sandra Siddons owned a downstairs condominium unit; David and Wendy Cook owned the unit directly above Siddons. Both units were part of the Country Place Condominium Association (the “Association”), located in Egg Harbor, NJ. Siddons sued the Cooks and the Association after her unit suffered water damage in excess of $25,000 as a result of a broken dishwasher hose in the Cooks’ unit. The Association was aware that dishwasher hoses in other condominium units (three, to be exact) had previously cracked/broken; however, since those hoses were the unit owner’s responsibility, the Association took the position that it had no responsibility to take any affirmative action to notify the other owners.

Read More

Condo FAQs: Tort Immunity

Posted by on Jul 17, 2018 in Condo FAQs, Legal Decisions, Legislation

By Jonathan H. Katz, Esq.

Hill Wallack LLP’s Condo FAQs is a continuing series in which we answer frequently asked questions (FAQs) pertaining to condominiums, cooperatives and homeowners associations. These FAQs relate to various issues that include interpretation of governing documents, board meetings, suspension of privileges, collections, or bankruptcy and foreclosure.

Question:  We have been told that our association may not be responsible or liable for personal injuries or damages when someone slips and falls. Is that correct?

Answer:  If your by-laws contain a provision providing for tort immunity, the answer may be yes. New Jersey has a tort immunity statute that allows associations to shield themselves from liability for certain types of injuries caused to unit owners due to the association’s negligence. This immunity is applicable as long as the association has certain language in their by-laws or takes the proper steps to amend their by-laws.

Specifically, N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-13 provides:

Read More

Be Careful What You Wish For: Arbitration Is Not Mediation

Posted by on Dec 5, 2017 in Alternative Dispute Resolution, Legal Decisions

By Michael S. Karpoff, Esq.

A recent decision by the Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court demonstrates the need for precision in defining what method of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) an association utilizes or agrees to. Carelessly referring to the ADR procedure as an arbitration can make the ultimate decision binding upon the parties, even if one of the parties had something else in mind.

Attorneys’ Communications Outweighed Asserted Intent

In Marano v. The Hills Highlands Master Association, Inc., which was decided on November 16, 2017, the Court rejected the Association’s argument that it was not bound by an arbitration award because the procedure it had used was intended to be a mediation. The Court found that plaintiff’s counsel had repeatedly referred to the procedure as an arbitration and the hearing officer as the arbitrator without objection by the Association’s attorney, and, in fact, the Association’s attorney had referred on at least one occasion to the hearing officer as “the arbitrator.” The hearing officer submitted to the attorneys an agreement to mediate, which they signed; however, she apparently understood her role as being an arbitrator because she later issued an “Award in Arbitration.”

Read More

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
Facebook