New Jersey Lawyer & Attorney : Stark & Stark Law Firm : New Jersey Law Blog

On Monday, January 18, 2010, as one of his last acts before leaving office, former Governor Corzine signed an Amendment to the Permit Extension Act (A4347) (the “PEA Amendment”) further extending the validity of most land use and construction approvals and permits (hereinafter “Approvals”), which would otherwise expire, until at least December 31, 2012.  Due to the recession, the Permit Extension Act of 2008, N.J.S  40:55D-136.1, et seq., (the “PEA”) was initially adopted in 2008  to provide for a tolling of expiration for specified Approvals through at least July 1, 2010 (together with additional extensions thereafter that might apply).  In order for the validity of an Approval to be extended under the PEA, it must have been valid or issued on or after January 1, 2007.

The time period for validity of Approvals is now further extended by the PEA Amendment until at least December 31, 2012 before the time begins to run on the validity of an Approval.   Subsequent to December 31, 2012, permits and approvals have a phased expiration whereby any unexpired portion of the term of the Approval further extends the Approval, limited to up to six (6) months from December 31, 2012, i.e., no later than June 30, 2013. In addition to the foregoing, a developer may exercise any unexercised extension applicable to such Approval. For example, if a developer were issued a permit on November 30, 2010 that was valid for two (2) years with the right to an additional one (1) year extension, the PEA Amendment would stop the clock on the expiration of this permit that would otherwise expire on November 30, 2012 and extend the expiration of the permit from November 30, 2012 to June 30, 2013. Should the developer be timely granted the one (1) year extension applicable under this scenario, the June 30, 2013 expiration would thereby be extended until June 30, 2014.

The Amendment is applicable to most municipal, county, regional and state development permits and approvals, but sets forth specific exceptions and limitations.  Property owners and developers with permits and approvals that are effective on or after January 1, 2007 should seek legal advice to determine the effect the PEA and the PEA Amendment may have on their development rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The State of New Jersey recently (on January 17, 2010) passed the New Jersey Foreclosure Fairness Act (the “Act”) which will effect how foreclosures cases are handled in the State of New Jersey.  The Act becomes effective February 16, 2010, however, certain notice requirements become effective January 26, 2010 as noted below.

RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH TENANTS
A person who takes title to a residential property containing tenants by way of a sheriff’s sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure, must provide notice no later than ten (10) business days after the sale, to any tenants of the property informing them that ownership has changed hands and that the tenants are not required to vacate the premises. 

This notice must be served by the new owner on the tenants by regular and certified mail, must be in both English and Spanish, must contain contact information to whom future rent is due and include a basic explanation of the tenant’s rights under the “Anti-Eviction Act”.  There is a particular form of notice required that the Department of Community Affairs will make  available on its website in a printable English and Spanish format that may be used.  (see www.state.nj.us/dca/ search Foreclosure Fairness Act)

The notice must also be posted prominently on the front door of each tenant’s unit. If the property contains ten (10) or more units, the new owner must post the notice in a common area of each residential building or structure on the property.

A similar notice with some additional information is also required if a summons and complaint or initial communication by a foreclosing creditor who seeks the tenant to vacate prior to the transfer of the property.

There must be no communication meant to persuade the tenant to vacate the premises except by way of a bona fide monetary offer, which must be in a made in a specific manner, and from which the tenant would have five (5) business days from receipt of the offer to accept and vacate or reject the offer.  Acceptance must be in writing.  No person or person’s agent may (1) make any misrepresentations of the rights of the tenant under the “Anti-Eviction Act” in order to induce the tenant to vacate the property; (2) state actions the owner may take against the tenant or imply the tenant is obligated to accept the offer; or, (3) any other form of harassment, such as failure to maintain the premises or rent increase in violation of municipal rent control or rent increase in violation of the Anti-Eviction Act or any other State, Federal or Municipal ordinance.

Any violation of the notice requirements or treatment of the tenants may result in triple damages or damages in the amount of $2,000.00 per violation plus attorney’s fees and costs.  Further civil or criminal actions may also be commenced against the creditor who violates this Act.

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 27, 2010
This Act requires that creditors serving foreclosures summons and complaints on residential property must within ten (10) days of service of the summons and complaint, notify the municipal clerk where the property is located. This will also affect any foreclosures filed  30 days before  February 16, 2010 which must also be reported to the respective municipal clerks.  The creditor must also notify the municipality if the owner of a residential property vacates or abandons a property on which a foreclosure action has been initiated. There is also a requirement to specify in the Foreclosure Complaint and notify the municipal Clerk with specified Act defined details if the property being foreclosed is an “Affordable Housing” unit. This notice must also be supplied to the municipal clerk within 10 days of the summons and complaint’s service.

After such notice if such property is found to be a nuisance or in violation of any applicable State or local code, the municipality must notify the creditor, whose responsibility it will be to correct the nuisance or violation. If the municipality expends public funds to abate a nuisance or correct a violation the municipality shall have the same recourse against the creditor as it would have against the “title owner”.

FORECLOSURE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Any creditor that initiates a mortgage foreclosure action in the Superior Court of New Jersey must report to the Department of Banking and Insurance, on a quarterly basis and in a specific format (organized by municipality), information about the number of mortgage foreclosures initiated by the creditor.

FORBEARANCE PERIOD FOR HIGH RISK MORTGAGE FORCLOSURES
If a foreclosure action is filed subject to the Fair Foreclosure Act, on a “high risk” mortgage loan, must grant the borrower a six (6) month forbearance upon request of the borrower to permit the borrower  to pursue a work out, loan modification or refinance. 

A “high risk loan” includes those loans that are interest only with a future reset rate; has a reset mortgage interest rate that increases the interest rate; contains payment option plan or “pick a payment” plan; contains a negative amortization schedule; is a subprime loan; contains an enforceable prepayment penalty; or, is a high cost home loan as defined by the New Jersey Home Ownership Security Act A subprime loan would include a consumer transaction secured by the consumer’s principal dwelling if it carries a rate of interest that exceeds the average prime offer rate as of the date the interest is set by 1.5 or more percentage points for loans secured by a first lien or 3.5 percentage points for loans secured by a subordinate lien. .

During this six (6) month period, the interest rate on the subject mortgage can not increase and the creditor may take no further action to pursue foreclosure. Notice of the forbearance right must be served with the summons and complaint.  If the borrow requests such a forbearance, it shall begin upon receipt of the borrower’s request. 

The forbearance notice must be include whether the loan is eligible to receive forbearance, that the borrower has the right to request forbearance no later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the summons and complaint; contact information as to where to send the request and that upon receipt of the request, the creditor shall inform the court to place a six (6) month stay on the foreclosure action. Once the forbearance period begins the borrower and creditor must participate in the foreclosure mediation process.

Should the borrower vacate the property anytime during the forbearance period, the forbearance period shall end. The forbearance right will only be effective until February 16, 2012 at which time this right shall expire.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Gary S. Forshner, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Real Estate Zoning & Land Use Group, was quoted in the January 13, 2010 Trenton Times article, Developer shares plans for enlarged Hamilton ShopRite, and the January 14, 2010 Trenton Times article, ShopRite decision on hold in Hamilton.

The articles discuss the recent plan to renovate the ailing Hamilton Square Shopping Center and enlarge its ShopRite supermarket from 53,000 square feet to 85,789 square feet. The shopping center, located at the corner of Route 33 and Yardville-Hamilton Square Road, currently has a vacancy rate of 30 percent or more.

The plans were introduced last week to the township zoning board and a decision will be made after the board meets for a final vote on the proposal on January 26, 2010 at the Hamilton Township Municipal Building. Mr. Forshner who represents Levin Properties, which owns the site, states, "We need to make sure that the locations along Route 33 are up-to-date, well-tended and rehabilitated. You don't want to end up with a blight situation along Route 33."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In this installment of Legal Lines, Stark & Stark Divorce attorneys, Megan Smith and Joseph Visco, continue the discussion regarding some common misconceptions of divorce litigation. Joseph Visco primarily focuses his family law practice in Pennsylvania, and notes various distinctions between New Jersey and Pennsylvania family law. These differences are discussed by the panelists, and include:

• Emancipation Differences In New Jersey And Pennsylvania
• College Contribution Obligation Of Divorced Parents
• Underemployment and Imputed Income
• Payment of Child Support Arrearages
• Setting Up A Child Support Probation Account

If you have any additional questions, feel free to contact the Stark & Stark Divorce Group at 1-877-678-Divorce.
 

Legal Lines - Episode 4 from Stark & Stark on Vimeo.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Stark & Stark Bankruptcy & Creditor’s Rights Group Chair, Timothy P. Duggan, authored the January 18, 2010 New Jersey Law Journal article, Bankruptcy Do’s & Don’ts for Personal Injury Attorneys: Ease your pain with a useful road map for the system.

The article discusses the recent increase in consumer bankruptcy filings and how a bankruptcy filing can impact a personal injury lawsuit.  Mr. Duggan offers several “Do’s & Don’ts” in order to assist personal injury lawyers through the United States Bankruptcy Code after their clients have been forced to file for bankruptcy.

You can read the full article online here. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On his last night as Governor of the State of New Jersey, Governor Corzine has supposedly signed into law a bill prohibiting the enforcement of "palimony" agreements unless such agreements are in writing (S-2091/ACS for A4296, 3833 [Scutari, Cardinale, Stender,Carroll/Stender, Carroll]).  The passage of this bill has an important impact on non-dissolution family law, where persons in long-term committed relationships sans "marriage" had the potential to make a palimony claim based upon a promise to support if the relationship went south.  While palimony law is primarily contract based, the new bill will require any such "promise to support" to be set forth in writing.  It will be interesting to see if a mere letter or email will meet this new requirement or if same will be reduced to terms similar to pre-nuptial agreements.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Thomas B. Lewis, Shareholder and Chair of Stark & Stark's Employment Group, was quoted in the January 14, 2010 RegisteredRep.com article, Citi Files Motion To Dismiss In Bonus Pay Class Action. The article discusses Citigroup's recent decision to file a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against the firm over the terms of its financial advisor bonus pay agreements. The motion was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York this past Monday, January 11, 2010.

Mr. Lewis states that there is a good chance that the court will dismiss the complaint, and goes on to say, “realistically it’s an issue that’s subject to FINRA’s jurisdiction. The plaintiffs tried to get out of the FINRA arbitration by getting class action status for the case. But courts are reluctant to get involved if there is FINRA jurisdiction.”

You can read the full article online here. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As residents of  Princeton Borough and Princeton Township are well aware, their municipalities  have undertaken a revaluation of the real estate within their boundaries for tax assessment purposes.   The last revaluation performed in Princeton Borough and Township was in 1996.  Recently, each municipality notified property owners by first class mail of their preliminary assessments.  The preliminary values were established by Appraisal Systems, Inc., an independent professional appraisal firm hired by the Princetons to perform their revaluations.  The date of the property revaluation is as of October 1, 2009.  These new values, once confirmed, will become a property’s new assessment, effective with the 2010 tax year. 

 

The purpose of the revaluation is to cause the tax burden to be more fairly shared by the properties, based on new tax assessments resulting from current true values of properties.

 

The Mercer County Board of Taxation ordered the Princetons to undergo a revaluation of the real estate within their borders when the individual assessment - sales ratios varied too widely within each municipality.  This ratio is determined by dividing the assessed value of a property by an accurate sales price, with the result being a percentage.  For example, if a property is assessed at $100,000 and sold for $200,000, the assessment sales ratio is 50%.  By 2008, these percentages were 40% in the Borough and 47% in the Township. 

 

The valuation of properties must be performed in accordance with state law as set forth in N.J.S.A. 54:4-1 et seq.  For every property, the revaluation appraiser creates a property record card which contains specific information about the physical attributes of the property (e.g., dimensions, age, condition of any buildings, etc.) and other information which may be of assistance to the appraiser (existing appraisals, recent sales, rent amounts, etc.).  The card is created with information obtained based on an actual inspection of the individual premises.  If entry onto the premises is not possible, the valuation will be an estimated one. 

 

In the Princetons, the preliminary valuations have now been established and letters notifying taxpayers recently mailed.  Each taxpayer will be provided with an opportunity to attend an individual informal review of the value proposed with a representative of Appraisal Systems, Inc.  At such time, Appraisal Systems, Inc. may consider revisions to its proposed valuation which may increase or decrease (or result in no change to) the proposed assessment, based on additional input from the taxpayer.

 

Taxpayers will have until May 1, 2010 to file an appeal with the Mercer County Board of Taxation if they are not satisfied with their new assessment.  Thereafter, an appeal can be taken to the State Tax Court within 45 days, with further appeals possible. 

 

Once the revaluation is completed and new property assessments are made by the tax assessor, a new municipal tax rate will be determined.  Taxpayers will then know to what extent, if any, their taxes will change due to their new assessment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This installment of the New Jersey Legal Update podcast is an interview with Adam J. Siegelheim, member of Stark & Stark's Franchise group, and Joseph D. Ornellas, President of Orion Franchise Consulting. Mr. Siegelheim and Mr. Ornellas discuss the most common question associated with franchising: Is my business franchise-able?

Mr. Siegelheim and Mr. Ornellas discuss key things to consider when you have decided to expand your business through franchising, including, intellectual property rights, how to determine your projected return on investment and the best way to set up your system of operation which will run your franchise and in the end make it profitable for you.

You can listen to the full podcast online here. (8.4 MB)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A large number of claims against the makers of defective birth control products, YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella®, for injuries ranging from internal organ damage to deep vein thrombosis have been designated as Mass Tort cases in state court, to be consolidated for case management and discovery purposes before Judge Moss in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. In the Mass Tort, counsel recently argued before Judge Moss regarding discovery issues. 

Defendants seek information on Plaintiffs’ use of any forms of contraceptive devices or medications.  Plaintiffs object to providing such information, as it would force minor Plaintiffs to reveal their sexual history, thus discouraging Plaintiffs from proceeding with litigation. Plaintiffs also argue information, such as the use of condoms, is not relevant to the injuries suffered allegedly from the use of YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella®.  Those discovery issues remain to be decided.

If you, or someone you know, has suffered injuries as a result of taking YAZ®, Yasmin® or Ocella®) contact one of Stark & Stark’s Mass Tort Attorneys today for a free case review.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Our recording system, having its roots in England, is basically a system for determining priority of legal claims against real estate. Thus, when one acquires title to real estate, or mortgages property, those instruments affecting title are usually recorded in the county clerk’s office. 

N.J.S.A. 46:21-1 entitled, “Recorded deeds or instruments as notice to subsequent judgment creditors, purchasers and mortgagees,”  makes clear the purpose of our recording statutes.  It states:

Except as otherwise provided herein, whenever any deed or instrument of the nature or description set forth in section 46:16-1 of this title, which shall have been or shall be duly acknowledged or proved and certified, shall have been or shall be duly recorded or lodged for record with the county recording officer of the county in which the real estate or other property affected thereby is situated or located such record shall, from time to time, be notice to all subsequent judgment creditors, purchasers and mortgagees of the execution of the deed or instrument so recorded or of the contents thereof.

N.J.S.A. 46:16-1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of instruments entitled to be recorded.  While, the recording of a document does not affect it’s validity as between the parties to the document, the consequences of not recording is set forth in N.J.S.A. 46:22-1:

Every deed or instrument of the nature or description set forth in section 46:16-1 of this title shall, until duly recorded or lodged for record in the office of the county recording officer in which the affected real estate or other property is situate, be void and of no effect against subsequent judgment creditors without notice, and against all subsequent bona fide purchasers and mortgagees for valuable consideration, not having notice thereof, whose deed shall have been first duly recorded or whose mortgage shall have been first duly recorded or registered; but any such deed or instrument shall be valid and operative, although not recorded, except as against such subsequent judgment creditors, purchasers and mortgagees.

Thus, the principal purpose of New Jersey’s Recording Act is to protect subsequent judgment creditors, bona fide purchasers, and bona fide mortgagees against assertion of prior claims to land based upon unrecorded instruments.

This statutory scheme, is referred to as a “race-notice” system.  A party who is a bona fide purchaser, mortgage holder, etc., for value and without any actual or constructive notice of adverse interests, is entitled to the protection of this statute.

 
The requirements for recording an instrument affecting title or an interest in real estate are not onerous; the instrument needs only to:   

• be in English or accompanied by an English translation;
• bear a signature;
• be acknowledged or proved as required by statute;
• have the names appear typed, printed or stamped beneath the signatures of any parties to the instrument and the officer before whom it was acknowledged or proved;
• have the required recording fee paid;
• include the name and signature of its preparer on the first page and the tax block and lot number if the instrument is a deed conveying real property   

If the instrument meets all the requirements for recording, the county recording officer will then copy it into the record and return the original document to the person submitting it for recording.
   
 

It becomes important to record all instruments affecting title to real estate to protect the recording party, as it will be generally presumed that all persons who deal with the property after that will do so with knowledge of the recorded instrument.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In this installment of Legal Lines, Stark & Stark Divorce attorneys, David Beaver and Megan Smith, devote the episode to tackling some common misconceptions of divorce litigation.  If you are involved in divorce litigation, this is a “must see” episode, as many of the myths surrounding New Family law are debunked. Some of the topics covered in this episode include:

• Alimony – Discussion of tax-related issues
• Emancipation of children
• True effect of marital fault in a NJ divorce proceeding
• Inherited funds – Subject to distribution?

If you have any additional questions, feel free to contact the Stark & Stark Divorce Group at 1-877-678-Divorce.

Legal Lines - Episode 3 from Stark & Stark on Vimeo.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Community Association Property Managers ("CAPM") are much different than their "property manager" brethren.  In general, real estate property managers are responsible for ensuring that the apartment or condo building that they are charged with is functioning properly, much like a superintendent.  CAPM's on the other hand are fiduciaries of the properties that they manage.  They act on behalf of the Board on a myriad of issues.  They are the first line of defense and in some cases are the face of the community.  CAPM's contact, interview and bid contractors.   They enter into contracts on behalf of the Association.  They are responsible for the Association's finances, from tracking delinquent owners to paying vendors.  They are sometimes thrust into the role of mediator in attempting to settle homeowner disputes.  They are generally responsible for guiding volunteer board members in the procedures of the Association, and they are sometimes called on to interpret or explain the Association's governing documents or the law under which the Association is governed.  And yet, with all of this responsibility, community association property managers in New Jersey are not required to be licensed or certified.  There is no state-wide standard required for managers, no required training, no background checks, and no governing body charged with ensuring that managers have a minium amount of knowledge and/or experience.

In 2008 Senator Christopher Bateman sponsored a bill (S-759) that would certify Community Association Managers (anyone managing a condo, co-op or homeowners association), and would require anyone in the business of property management for common interest communities to be certified under standards created by the Department of Community Affairs consistent with already existing national standards.  The bill would not require certification, but would prohibit those without the certification from holding themselves out as being "certified" in the field of property management. The act would also require all Associations in New Jersey to hire only certified managers, and would require that the contract between the Association and the manager include the insurance, bonding and certification requirements.

 
The two year certification would require a mix of schooling and experience, and would then require that the applicant pass a written examination. Each certified manger would have to be bonded in the amount of $3,000. 

 
The requirements of the training and exam are likely to be similar to the National Board of Certification for Community Association Managers (NBC-CAM) which has created a certification for community association property managers.  This certification requires classroom study and an exam involving subjects such as governance and legal matters, budgets, reserves and assessments, risk management and insurance, maintenance, contracting and human resource management.  This certification, while obviously not a guarantee of superior service or compliance with each and every standard, at least sets a minium standard for those who enter this field. The certification also requires that managers:

• Be knowledgeable, act, and encourage clients to act in accordance with any and all federal, state, and local laws applicable to community association management and operations.
• Be knowledgeable, comply and encourage clients to comply with the applicable governing documents, policies and procedures of the Client Association(s) to the extent permitted by that Client.
• Not knowingly misrepresent materials facts, make inaccurate statements or act in any fraudulent manner while representing Client Association(s) or acting as a CMCA.
• Not provide legal advice to Client Association(s) or any of its members, or otherwise engage in the unlicenced practice of law.
• Promptly disclose to Client Association(s) any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may involve the manager.
• Refuse to accept any form of gratuity or other remuneration from individuals or companies that could be viewed as an improper inducement to influence the manager.
• Participate in continuing professional education and satisfy all requirements to maintain the certification.

Manager certification has been an issue since at least 1999 when the Assembly Local Government and Housing Committee discussed the pros and cons of such a certification, related to the proposed Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. The current bill is presently being debated in committee, and mirrors a similar bill introduced by then Assemblyman Bateman in 2006.  The 2006 bill was abandoned before being put up to a vote of the Assembly.  However, now more than ever, this certification may be a necessary step in the field of community management.  There are new and larger associations cropping up across New Jersey, and more and more management companies being created to service these companies, some of which have no experience with condominiums, townhouses or cooperatives.  While obviously not a panacea, it would be extremely helpful to give the Board of Trustees a comfort level that the manager they wish to hire has studied specific issues and subjects that will enhance their ability to serve the community.  This is essential for volunteer, part-time Board Members who are often times unable to separate the good from the bad in the ever growing property management world.  It may also allow the quality CAPM's out there to further distinguish themselves from those who do not fully understand the full breadth of their position, or who are unable to properly service their community.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New Jersey Clean Energy Program administered by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities through its Office of Clean Energy offers a host of financial incentives.  Among these is the Pay for Performance Program, which is funded by the societal benefits charge authorized by the New Jersey Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act.  Under this program, a qualifying utility customer may receive up to 50% of the total cost of energy-efficient measures recommended by an energy efficiency expert, also known as a program “partner,” who the customer selects from a pre-approved list, provided that the implementation of such measures will achieve an energy savings of at least 15%.  A customer participating in the Pay for Performance Program may also receive funds to offset the cost of the program partner’s services at a rate of $0.10 per square foot up to a maximum of $50,000 or 50% of the annual energy cost of the building or facility that is the subject of the application for benefits, whichever is less. 

In addition to the foregoing, the pay for performance program provides advanced measure incentives for combined heat and power and incentives for new construction provided that the project contains at least 50,000 square feet of planned conditioned space, is located in a smart growth area and achieves energy costs that are at least 15% below the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standards 90.1-2004.

In order to be eligible for the Pay for Performance Program, (1) an applicant must be a customer of a regulated electric utility and/or gas utility in New Jersey, including Atlantic City Electric, Jersey Central Power & Light, Rockland Electric Company, New Jersey Natural Gas, Elizabethtown Gas, PSE&G and South Jersey Gas, and (2) the project for which an application is made must consist of one or more preexisting commercial, industrial, institutional or multi-family residential structures having over 200 kW average annual peak demand electrical usage, except for affordable housing, which is exempt from the requirement of having over 200 kW average annual peak demand electrical usage. Individual buildings, as well as multiple buildings in complexes owned by a single person or entity, may qualify for benefits under the program provided that they meet the above criteria.  Condominium associations may also be eligible to receive incentives for energy-efficient measures relating to common elements under this program.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It is common knowledge that exterior modifications in a community association must be approved by the board of trustees.  Right?  Well, except for certain satellite dish antennas which, by federal law, can be installed on exclusive use areas without pre-approval (Over the Air Reception Devices, (OTARD), 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000),  and United States flags and certain signs of troop support (such as yellow ribbons) all of which may be displayed as long as there is no threat to public safety, necessary maintenance activities can be performed and the property rights of others are not impaired (Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act (PREDFDA), N.J.S.A. 45:22A-48.1 This New Jersey law also states that flags can be prohibited if they are displayed in a manner inconsistent with the federal flag Code or other laws or guidelines. ).  There is another notable exception to that “common knowledge”: solar collectors.  Effective August 2007, New Jersey law prohibits a community association from adopting or enforcing any “restriction, covenant, bylaw, rule or regulation prohibiting the installation of solar collectors on certain roofs of dwelling units” (PREDFDA, N.J.S.A. 45:22A-48.2).   The law only applies to the roofs of single family dwelling units which are not designated common elements and the roofs of certain types of townhouse units where repair is unit owner’s responsibility.  Associations still under developer control are exempt from the law.
 

While an association may not prohibit the installation of solar collectors on such roofs, it may adopt rules to regulate their installation and maintenance.  However, an association is limited to the following installation rules: 

1. The qualifications, certification and insurance requirements of personnel or contractors who may install the solar collectors;
2. The location where solar collectors may be placed on roofs;
3. The concealment of solar collectors’ supportive structures, fixtures and piping; and
4. The color harmonization of solar collectors with the colors of structures or landscaping in the development; and
5. The aggregate size or coverage or total number of solar collectors
    

Lest an association attempt to indirectly prevent solar collectors by strict rules, the law clearly prohibits rules in which the effectiveness of the solar collectors are significantly reduced or the cost of installing them is significantly increased.  An association may not adopt or enforce any rule which would “increase the solar collectors’ installation or maintenance costs by an amount which is estimated to be greater than 10 percent of the total cost of the initial installation of the solar collectors, including the costs of labor and equipment.”  Additionally, none of the rules regulating installation and maintenance of a solar collector on the roofs may inhibit the solar collectors from functioning at their “intended maximum efficiency.” 
 

It is important to understand that not all unit owners may be entitled under this law to install solar collectors.  And, while the law does limit rules restricting installations where permitted, an association can and should implement policies for solar collector installation and maintenance. Consulting with the association’s legal counsel is necessary to ensure that policies conform to the law.  No matter where you stand on solar collectors, having policies in place will help ensure that your community maintains consistent aesthetic standards.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we all know, New Jersey continues to be plagued by both a troubled real estate market and economy.  Our real estate market remains awash in homes either in foreclosure, or having gone through a foreclosure and subsequent sheriff's sale.   It also remains awash in unsold new construction, and an essentially non-existent new construction pipeline.  October's figures show a "mixed bag" as they say.  First, construction of new homes in the New Jersey region fell 18.8%.  This included a nearly 10% decline in the construction of single family homes.

 

Second, and on the other hand, for the first time in 2009, the number of residential foreclosure filings was lower than it was over the same period in October 2008.  Lenders started 4,991 foreclosures against New Jersey homeowners in October 2009, down from 5,262 during October 2008.  The October 2009 figures were also less than a height of 6,138 filings, from June 2009.   These two relate via home builders' likely reluctance to erect new homes in the face of the existing inventory of homes, much of which stemming from the availability of foreclosed homes.

 

The extent and progress of these foreclosures appears to be slowing as well via the numerous state and federal programs designed to help owners avoid foreclosure.  More than 2,600 New Jerseyans have received counseling through New Jersey's foreclosure mediation program.  Of the 2,600 that received counseling, about 1,450 cases have been completed and roughly half of those were able to remain in their homes.  The federal government reported recently that approximately 22,100 New Jersey homeowners have reworked their mortgages through the federal loan modification program.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Christopher Florio, Shareholder and Co-chair of Stark & Stark's Community Association Group, was recently installed as the 2010 President of the New Jersey Chapter of the Community Association Institute (CAI). Mr. Florio accepted this position at the chapter's annual retreat, held at Clearbrook Community Association, on December 16, 2009. Mr. Florio has been involved with CAI for over 17 years.

Mr. Florio states, "The New Jersey chapter of CAI remains a vibrant entity under the daily leadership of Curt Macysyn, CAI's Executive Director and the stewardship of CAI's recent past-president, Jim Rademacher. I, along with our executive committee and board, intend to continue Jim's efforts of the past year into 2010, including an increase in leadership opportunities to all members who seek these positions in a responsible fashion, an increase in our chapter's member service, and a vigorous promotion of CAI NJ's legislative agenda."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Plaintiffs have brought claims against the makers of YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella®, for injuries ranging from internal organ damage (including gallbladder damage), to deep vein thrombosis (or blood clots), stroke, heart attack, myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism.

A large number of such cases have been designated as Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) cases in the federal courts, to be consolidated for case management and discovery purposes before Judge Herndon the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In the MDL, on November 12, 2009, the Court appointed attorneys to act as Defendants’ Lead and Liason Counsel, as well as Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. These select attorneys will be primarily responsible for conducting litigation activities for the consolidated cases.

Stark & Stark’s Mass Tort/Pharmaceutical Litigation Team pursues claims throughout the nation against drug manufacturers, so they can be held accountable when the drugs they market are proven to be defective. If you feel you, or someone you know, have experienced any side-effects from taking YAZ® or Yasmin® contact Stark & Stark to speak to one of the Mass Tort/ Pharmaceutical Litigation attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against the YAZ®, Yasmin® or Ocella® manufacturers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link