A. Christopher Florio

A. Christopher Florio has no picture

A. Christopher Florio, Shareholder, practices in the Community Associations Law Group. In addition, Mr. Florio has substantial experience in the negotiation of loan transactions, work-outs, real estate law, including foreclosures, and also has substantial expertise in floor-plan financing.Mr. Florio has served as a member of the New Jersey Assembly Task Force, commissioned to study community associations in New Jersey. He was appointed to the position by General Assembly Speaker Chuck Haytaian and again by General Assembly Speaker Jack Collins. Additionally, he serves on the New Jersey Chapter of the Community Associations Institute (CAI) Board of Directors and is President of CA-PAC, the New Jersey Chapter of the Community Associations Institute Political Action Committee. Mr. Florio is a frequent speaker in the area of community association law.Mr. Florio is also serving a two year term on the Monmouth Republican Committee as a committeeman for the Upper Freehold (NJ) District. He also serves on the Recreation Committee in Upper Freehold Township.


Articles By This Author

Federal Law Protects Armed Services Members - What Employers Need to Know

no picture

The term “blitzkrieg” became a common term on September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland.  Thus, commenced the domino effect of nations falling to Germany, and America’s official position of “neutrality” coupled with the realization that its military was no match against the axis nations.  However, the American government knew  a  large  amount of manpower was going to be necessary to deal with the looming war.  Forward-thinking legislators enacted the “Selective Training and Service Act of 1940" , commonly referred to as “STSA”, which was the first Federal attempt to clarify laws relating to the re-employment rights of service members.  As millions of men would ultimately be affected as a result of serving during World War II, the STSA provided returning service members with certain re-employment rights.  However, changing times required the law be updated.  In 1974, Congress passed the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Act of 1974 (later re-codified  and commonly referred to as the Veterans’ Re-Employment Rights Act or “VRRA”.)
   

Both the STSA and VRRA were amended and re-codified in 1994 and became known as the Uniform Services Employment and Re-Employment Rights Act of 1994 (38 U.S.C. 4301 - USERRA).  The main purpose of USERRA was: 1) to make certain that persons serving in the armed forces, reserves, national  guard or other “uniformed  services” are  not disadvantaged in their civilian careers as a result of their military service; and 2) to make certain service members were promptly re-employed upon their military service conclusion; and 3) to make certain service members were not discriminated against in their civilian jobs as a result of their military service.
 

In order for USERRA to apply,  an employer only needs one employee.  See  Cole v. Swint, 961 F2nd 58, 60(5th Cir. 1992).
   

In construing USERRA and prior laws, Courts have followed the Supreme Court’s admonition that “This legislation is to be liberally construed for the benefit of those who left private life to serve their country in its hour of great need.”  Re-employment rights extend to persons who have been absent  from employment because of “service in the uniformed services.”  “Uniformed Services” consists of the following:

  • Army
  • Navy
  • Marine Corp.
  • Air Force
  • Coast Guard
  • Army Reserve
  • Naval Reserve
  • Marine Corp. Reserve
  • Air Force Reserve
  • Coast Guard Reserve
  • Army National Guard or Air National Guard
  • Commission Corps of the Public Health Service
  • Any other category of persons designated by the President in time of war or emergency

 

In order for an employee to give notice to an employer of military service, all notice may be written or oral.  Notice will not be required if:

  • Military necessity prevents the giving of notice; and/or
  • The giving of notice is otherwise impossible or unreasonable.

   

Upon return to work after military service, the employee has certain time frames to report back to work depending upon the length of service  (assuming the military member is not injured during military service).  Ninety days after military service is the longest time line upon a service member’s return to make an application for re-employment with the employer.  This ninety-day period is for those members who have served in excess of 181 days or more.
   

One of the more interesting provisions of USERRA is a provision that is colloquially known as the  “escalator position”.  That is, USERRA requires that an employee returning from military service be placed back into a position, with limited exception, to a level of employment that the person would have enjoyed if the individual had been continuously employed.  For example, if an employee left for three years of military service, if all of his or her colleagues in similar jobs and pay scale were given promotions and pay raises based on length of service, the returning service member would  also be entitled to the same promotion and pay raises as if he or she had never left continuous employment. 

   

Hand in hand with the “escalator” clause is the returning service member’s right to all seniority rights and benefits a service member would have obtained had the service member been continuously employed.  The test to determine whether or not rights are seniority rights is whether or not those seniority rights are determined by the length of service.  If it is not, the employer is not required to provide the returning service member with the particular seniority right. 
   

Since the beginning of the “First Gulf War”, the Country’s National Guard has been called upon time and time again.  The question that frequently  arises is if  these “week-end warriors” are covered by USERRA when these National Guardsmen must report for the one week-end a month and two-week training in the summer.  The “week-end warrior” is covered under USERRA,  and any employer prohibition against National Guardsmen performing his or her duties is prohibited under USERRA (this is not to say that the Guardsman is allowed to abuse the rights afforded to Guardsmen under USERRA. If an employer feels an employee is abusing the USERRA rights, the employer is well within his or her right to contact the employee's commanding officer to discuss the situation. Further, there is a national organization called the ESGR (Employer Support for the Garden Reserves), including its local chapter here in New Jersey to assist both employers and employees regarding USERRA rights). While service members may use vacation time to fulfill the service member’s obligation to the military, an employer is prohibited from requiring a service member to utilize vacation to do so. 
 

An aggrieved service member may bring an action against an employer privately, or utilize an attorney in the Department of Justice if VETS refers a matter to the Department of Justice.  Once a service member chooses the path he or she wishes to take, the service member is barred from using the declined option if the chosen path is unsuccessful.  While the Department of Labor  is charged with overseeing the law and implementing its requirements (The Department of Labor has a specific sub-group within the Department called the "Veterans Employment and Training Services (VETSS)" which investigates complaints and attempts to resolve these complaints. If a complaint cannot be resolved in an amicable fashion, VETS can refer the matter to the Department of Justice).   
   

While this article has dealt with the service member once employed, employers should be aware that it is also unlawful to deny an employee-candidate based solely on his or her involvement in the Uniform Services.  The burden of proof to prove other factors resulted in denial of employment is rested squarely on the employer.   
   

While USERRA is a law that may be difficult to navigate and understand, the rationale for its implementation certainly is very clear.  Individuals who are willing to leave their safety nets for higher service to the country need to be valued and protected upon his or her return to civilian life.  While the law does recognize the sacrifice employers make to allow service-member employees to perform his or her duties, it is very difficult to argue against the safety net that USERRA provides.

Senate Bill 2577 - Opening Up Of Age-restricted Housing

no picture

There has been some recent concern about Senate Bill No. 2577 that is apparently being prepared for Governor Corzine’s desk for adoption as it relates to age-restricted communities.

The bill would allow developers to make an application permitting a change from an age-restricted development to a non-restricted development. What appears to be causing a lot of concern is the reliance upon the buzz word of “age-restricted” to “non-restricted” without delving into the bill itself.

One of the major requirements for an age-restricted development to be converted to a non-restricted development is that the developer of the age-restricted development cannot be holding any deposits for, or has not conveyed any units within, a particular development. Therefore, any development that is already under construction, or houses have closed, or even if a development has yet to close its first home, but a deposit has been conveyed by a purchaser to the developer, that particular development cannot be converted from age-restricted to non-restricted.

You may access a copy of Senate Bill No. 2577 here.

Governor Signs Community Age Restriction Legislation Into Law

no picture

Senate Bill 88/Assembly Bill 305, which is intended to prevent the improper sale or transfer of property to those who do not meet the age requirements of a senior community, was signed into law yesterday by Governor Jon Corzine.

 
The Bill, initially introduced by Senator Christopher J. Connors, Assemblyman Brian E. Rumpf and Assemblyman Daniel M. Van Pelt in January of this year, requires the purchaser of a property in an age-restricted community to certify that the person occupying the residence meets the age requirements of the community. This would assist adult communities in complying with quotas established for the "housing for older persons" exception from the federal "Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988."


Currently, federal law states that 100% of the resident in a community built for occupants 62-years of age or older must be 62-years of age or older. Whereas, communities intended for residents 55-years of age or older, only need to have 80 % of the residents and one person per household be 55-years of age or older.
 


I am pleased to announce that SB 88 has been signed into law. This Bill will assist in creating a method of ensuring compliance by age-restricted communities with federal law. You can read more on the passage of Senate Bill 88/Assembly Bill 305 here.

Summerhill Condominium v. Venner - Applicable Attorneys Fees

no picture
The Appellate Division recently decided in favor of an association as it pertains to the amount of attorneys fees awarded in the matter of Summerhill Condominium v. Venner. What is most germane to associations is the fact the lower Court found, and was upheld by the Appellate division, the attorneys fees and costs to be reasonable, despite the attorneys fees being more than 50% of the amount of maintenance fees due.


While the Appellate Court stated that the work needed to complete this matter was not "novel or complex", the Court did recognized the amount of work needed to complete the matter, and agreed that the fees in this matter were similar to fees that are regularly charged for this type of work.


It is important that Courts have an understanding of the legal work needed to collect maintenance fees. Regardless of the amount owed to an association, the attorneys fees and costs needed are similar no matter the amount owed.

Ruggiero v. Valleybrook HOA - Collecting Maintenance Fees

no picture
In the recent case of Ruggiero v. Valleybrook Homeowner’s Association (Valleybrook), the plaintiff, Ruggiero, claimed that the method Valleybrook used to collect maintenance fees was not consistent with all sub-associations, and therefore invalid under the law.


The Appellate Division affirmed a lower Court’s decision stating that Valleybrook’s methodology of collecting maintenance fees was proper, and distinguished this case form the Brandon Farms Property owners Association v. Brandon Farms Condominium Association case ("Brandon Farms").


In Brandon Farms, the governing documents had language requiring the sub-association (the condo) to be responsible for collecting the fees due to the master association (the property owners association).  That was invalidated in 2004 by the New Jersey Supreme Court.  


However, what distinguished this matter from the Brandon Farms case is that the sub-association voluntarily collects the master association fees from its members, and then forwards those sums to the master association.  The Appellate Division decided that this method of collection did not violate any law.

Cottelli v. Leisure Village East Association - Tort Immunity In Community Associations

no picture
In Cottelli v. Leisure Village East Association, plaintiff slipped and fell on snow and ice outside of the condominium association. After the plaintiff filed suit, and before the deposition of the association could occur, the association filed a summary judgment motion stating that tort immunity language within their governing documents absolved them from liability in this case.


The association’s governing documents states, “Except for willful or gross negligence, Association not label for bodily injury." The Appellate Division granted summary judgment, but also stated that additional facts relating to the case need to be found in order to determine whether or not negligence or willful misconduct existed on the part of the association. 


This case follows logically what should occur with the tort immunity statute.  While an association may eventually win the case, in order to make certain there is no appeal that can be won, all discovery should be completed so there are no facts in controversy, and the trier of fact (in this case, the judge) can make a determination if tort immunity statute can be utilized in the instant case.

Capital Contributions Now Permitted by NJ Condominium Act

no picture
On September 10, 2007, Governor Corzine signed into legislation a bill modifying Section 46:8B-15 of the New Jersey Condominium Act.  The bill now confirms that condominium associations may charge a capital contribution or membership fee, as long as the association’s master deed or by-laws provide the authority for doing so.  You may recall that the recent Micheve case cast doubt on an association’s ability to collect these fees.  Also included in the bill is a provision mandating that association funds must be maintained separately and not commingled.

Capital Contribution and Membership Fees.  The law now provides that, if authorized by the master deed or bylaws, an association may collect a capital contribution, membership fee or other charge upon the initial sale or subsequent resale of a unit.  The funds collected must be allocated for maintaining or improving the common elements or defraying common expenses or otherwise.  The charge may not exceed nine times the amount of the most recent monthly common expense assessment for the unit.  The bill also validates any existing master deed or bylaws provision which already provides for the collection of this type of fee. 

Thus, a condominium association whose by-laws or master deed already include authority to charge a capital contribution or membership fee (whether in the original version or by amendment prior to this legislation) can now be confident of its ability to charge the fee.  Any condominium association which does not currently have the authority to charge a capital contribution or membership fee may now take steps to amend its by-laws or master deed.

The legislation, because it is part of the Condominium Act, does not apply to homeowners associations or cooperatives. 

Maintaining Association Funds.  The law also includes a provision that requires all funds collected by the association to be maintained separately in the association’s name.  For investment purposes only, reserves may be commingled with operating funds of the association as long as each fund is accounted for separately and the balance of the account never falls below the amount identified as reserve funds.  Under no circumstances may association funds be commingled with the funds of the managing agent, a trustee, or of another association.  These requirements should not be a surprise to most associations as they likely operate in this way already. 

New Jersey Superior Court Rules on Surplus Funds Affecting Homeowner's Associations

no picture
On December 22, 2006, the Honorable Neil H. Shuster, Chancery Division, Mercer County Superior Court, rendered a decision in the case of Washington Mutual Home Loans, Inc. v. Rodrigo S. Lima, et al. This decision marks the first time that a New Jersey court has addressed the issue of distributing surplus funds resulting from a foreclosure sale on an “affordable housing unit” where a township or municipality was the successful bidder.

In this case Hopewell Township claimed entitlement to all surplus funds above the mortgaged amount arguing that under current New Jersey Law the owner of the affordable unit would be “personally obligated to pay the administrative entity responsible for assuring affordability any surplus funds,” should the property be foreclosed upon. However, the Brandon Farms Condominium Association argued that the New Jersey Condominium Act, which provides homeowner associations the right to collect on any liens, takes priority over the statute cited by Hopewell Township. Brandon Farms also argued that it would be impractical to expect an association to provide a myriad of services to its members if it has no means of collecting assessments to fund the costs of services.

Despite the Township’s claim to the entire surplus, Judge Shuster found that Brandon Farms was entitled to have their liens satisfied using surplus funds, and that only after the Association collected on their liens would any remaining monies go to the Township.

New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 56

no picture
This week's New Jersey Legal Update podcast will discuss the landmark case of Washington Mutual Home Loans, Inc. v. Rodrigo S. Lima, et al. This podcast will give a brief summary of the case, as well as a discussion of the implications of this decision and the impact it will have on Condominium Associations.

This week's New Jersey Legal Update is presented by A. Christopher Florio, Co-Chair of Stark & Stark’s Community Associations Group.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 56 here. (5.6 MB)

Technorati Tags: : : : :

New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 36

no picture
This week's New Jersey Legal Update podcast will discuss the recent Appellate Court decision in Siddons v. Cook which stated that condominiums may have a duty to warn condominium owners of potentially dangerous conditions known to it, even involving property or issues related only to an individual unit.

This week's New Jersey Legal Update is presented by Christopher Florio, Co-Chair of the Firm's Community Associations Group.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 36 here.(4.5 MB)

Technorati Tags: : : :