The outcome of this association's suit reminds us of an association's need to consider federal law when dealing with issues that have been regulated by the federal government, such as telecommunications, fair housing, bankruptcy and mortgages.  Further, the outcome  is also further evidence of the questionable value of agreements made with municipalities to protect community values, in lieu of direct action by those communities themselves. 

The presentation was part of Wentworth Property Management's Solar Symposium, held at the Renaissance @ Manchester Association on February 18, 2010.  Mr. Byrne focused his presentation on the rights and limitations of boards in relation to solar power.  He discussed the fiduciary duties of community associations, the interpretations of restrictive covenants and the enforcement of rules, all in connection with solar power.

You can download the full presentation online here. (13.4 MB)

Traditionally, a short sale is when the proceeds from the sale of a home are insufficient to fully pay off all outstanding debts and encumbrances recorded against the property.  In these situations, the selling homeowners can either bring funds to the closing to make up the difference, or obtain approval from their mortgage lenders to accept a reduced amount to satisfy their outstanding loans.  

Under HAFA, the lender must offer a short sale in writing to the homeowner within 30 days after the homeowner either is found ineligible for mortgage modification under HAMP or has been ruled unable to sustain payments under a trial plan. Under the new plan, a lender will use real estate agents to determine the value of the encumbered home and this figure will be the  lender’s minimum to accept for a short sale. This figure will not be shared with the homeowner, but if an offer comes in that is equal to or greater than this amount, the lender must accept it and proceed with the short sale. 

Under this new program the primary lender will receive $1000 if the short sale is completed. A lender holding a secondary lien could get up to $3000 of the short sale proceeds, or can attempt a short sale outside the program if it does not agree to share.  In addition, the selling homeowner will get $1500 in "relocation assistance".  

While HAFA will attempt to make short sales easier and a more likely alternative to foreclosure,  short sales require significant time and patience by all parties involved. Luckily, with the seemingly continuous delay of the foreclosure process by the New Jersey courts, one thing that delinquent homeowners seem to have is time. 

At the beginning of foreclosure crisis lenders shunned short sales and would regularly refuse to participate in the process. However with the failure of other federal programs to effectively turn the tide of the foreclosure flood, it may now be time for short sales to see their moment in the sun. For condominium and homeowner associations ("Associations"), HAFA may mean fewer empty foreclosed homes waiting to be sold by uninterested and unmotivated lenders.  Another direct benefit of the HAFA program for Associations is that the common assessment liens recorded against the homeowners’ units must be paid in full for the short sale to be completed. This will provide Associations significant leverage to ensure that unpaid common assessments are recovered. 

FHA certification will likely make the sale and purchase of homes within a condominium easier.  There are arguments available to owners by which a condominium may have a fiduciary duty to seek FHA certification.  The condominium's approved status will be published, and FHA will be free to insure loans there.  To the extent that management or your board would like to secure FHA certification, Stark & Stark's Community Association, and Condominium & Co-Op, Groups are ready to discuss the relevant issues, and prepare and file the applications.  If you would like additional information, or to hear more about the FHA, condominiums and/or the certification process, please contact David J. Byrne  or A. Christopher Florio. 

The presentation was made to the Pennsylvania and Delaware Valley Chapter of the Community Association Institute on February 18, 2010, in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey.  Mr. Byrne focused his presentation on the new guidelines issues by the Federal Housing Administration ("FHA"), the Federal National Mortgage Agency ("Fannie Mae") and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") in relation to loans made in condominiums.  He explained the new guidelines, outlined the eligibility rules and discussed the requirements connected with FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac lending.

You can download the full presentation online here. (26.8 MB)

Assemblyman Peter Biondi introduced a bill in January 2010 in which he stated that with the quasi governmental powers provided to associations should come standards of "fairness and due process."  The bill provides that associations should be held to similar standards of transparency and fairness.

As to the bidding requirements, Assemblyman Biondi is proposing to enact rules which would force associations to:
 

1. Obtain three quotes for any contract for services or materials whenever the amount payable by the association is over $10,000 in any 12 month period.
2. Use sealed bids with required specifications , to be opened only a publicly announced meeting for any contract that exceeds $25,000.
3. Award all contracts to the vendor that provided the lowest quote or bid, unless the board determines, for good cause, that accepting the bid would be detrimental to the best interests of the residents. 

Interestingly, any association with fewer than 30 units can, by resolution, waive any of these provisions. 

 

Although community associations are similar in many ways to government, the last thing any association wants to do is model itself after any level of government.  Government agencies are often marred by corruption, red tape, cost overruns and unnecessary levels of bureaucracy; things that most associations in New Jersey try to avoid.  On its face, obtaining three bids sounds like a reasonable and prudent business practice.  However, Board members are entirely capable of determining how many bids to obtain for a particular project or service, and obtaining three is hardly a panacea for problems that result from hiring the wrong contractor.  Moreover, obtaining three quotes may be impossible, for example, for an association that pursuant to the master deed must hire a property management company within 5 miles of the association, and only 2 fit that description.

 

However, when you get to section 3, the real problem is revealed.  Forcing associations to hire the cheapest vendor guarantees problems.  The old axiom, "you get what you pay for" has proven true over and over again.  Think about how well this formula has worked for the government.  The least expensive contractor has given us shoddily built schools, bridges and government buildings.  Why should associations model this behavior?  In fact, some governments have completely scrapped this program.  New York City and Camden both ended their lowest bidder programs (allowing for consideration of experience, completeness of the quotation, references, etc.) with shocking results: construction quality got better. 

 

If an individual association wants to enact such a rule, it is obviously free to do so, but the mechanism to prevent problems is already in place.  First, the governing documents of many associations require the approval of 2/3 of the homeowners to approve assessments related to work in a certain dollar amount.  Second, the system of goverenence itself ensures that if the Board makes a habit of hiring the first contractor to provide a bid, or is hiring friends and relatives who do shoddy work, then the unit owners have the right to vote them out of office during the next election.  Like most legislation, this proposed law is likely a reaction to one or two troublesome boards who made poor decisions, prompting an Assemblyman to react in such a way that will saddle all associations with unnecessary requirements which are likely to cause more problems than they cure.

As for dealing with conflicts of interest, Assemblyman Biondi is proposing that:

1. No member of the board or management can have an interest in any business which is in conflict with the proper discharge of their duties, including having a direct interest in any contracts for work or materials used by the association or any fees paid to a broker, architect, etc.;
2. No board members or managers can use their position to obtain any unwarranted privileges for any person;
3. No board members or managers can act in his or her capacity in any matter in which he or she, a related person, or any other person residing in his or her household or the household of a related person, or any business organization in which any of such persons has an interest, has a direct or indirect financial or personal involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair the objectivity or independence of judgment of the board member, employee or property manager.
    

Like most legislation, these may be obvious and proper rules to have.... until they are applied to the real world.  As with any law or rule, there are always unintended consequences.  If a Board Member's brother owns a painting business and can do a quality job for 15% less than the competition, shouldn't the Association be permitted to hire that person, provided the Board Member in question discloses this fact to his fellow board members?  Arguably, under section 3 of the proposed legislation, the board wouldn't even be permitted to consider hiring this contractor.  But under the existing Nonprofit Corporations Act, which applies to associations, such a contract would not be void solely due to the fact that a trustee has an interest in the contract or transaction, as long as the interest is fully disclosed to the entire board before they vote on the issue. N.J.S.A. 15A:6-7.  The proposed legislation would obviously conflict with the Nonprofit Corporations Act, causing further confusion for board members and homeowners. 
 

The legislature is trying to get boards and associations to act in a proper and more efficient manner, but the real way to accomplish this is to become active in your association.  Vote, attend meetings, provide feedback and be involved.  If the majority of unit owners are involved in the process, then the Board will be responsible for their decisions, they will consider multiple points of view and incompetent or untrustworthy board members will be voted out of office.   That way, each Association can make decisions that best fit their particular situation and are less likely to have unnecessary rules forced upon them.

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.

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 commercial, industrial, institutional or multi-family residential structures having over 200 kW average annual peak demand electrical usage (if the buildings are preexisting) or having at least 50,000 square feet or more of planned conditioned space (if the project calls for new construction).  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.

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.

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.

The connection between moldy houses and a particular physical ailment is a difficult one to make.  Mold is everywhere.  And while it is possible for some growths of mold to cause temporary damage to an allergic person, there is little if any proof that exposure to a certain type of mold will cause specific symptoms in anyone.  The effects of mold exposure differ from person to person.  In fact, the Centers for Disease Control web site states that:

Mold exposure does not always present a health problem indoors. However some people are sensitive to molds. These people may experience symptoms such as nasal stuffiness, eye irritation, wheezing, or skin irritation when exposed to molds. Some people may have more severe reactions to molds. Severe reactions may occur among workers exposed to large amounts of molds in occupational settings, such as farmers working around moldy hay. Severe reactions may include fever and shortness of breath. Immunocompromised persons and persons with chronic lung diseases like COPD are at increased risk for opportunistic infections and may develop fungal infections in their lungs.

Everyone knows that placing your hand over a flame will cause a burn.  Not even the scientists at the CDC know if the mold in your house or workplace will harm you. There are no recognized standards for the amount of mold that will cause symptoms, or the length of time you need to be exposed to certain mold to be injured.  Most people who have mold allergies stay away from hay, potpourri and indoor plants.  If they are exposed to mold they may have sneezing, coughing and breathing problems, but those go away as soon as they leave the horse stable or their grandparent's house.  These pesky facts however, have not precluded industrious lawyers and plaintiffs from filing numerous questionable "toxic mold" lawsuits.  Lawsuits based on the "I know it’s true" platform are being filed all the time, accompanied by "I'm a doctor and I'm pretty sure the Plaintiff was injured based on what they told me and that article I read last week" medical reports as proof.

Despite the fact that the CDC is unable to nail down a cause and effect relationship between mold and physical ailments, jurors around the country are asked every day to do just that.  They have become the means by which the courts differentiate the junk science from the real science.  This disturbing trend is, in part, a result of judges abdicating their responsibilities as expert witness gate keepers.  Increasingly, courts are allowing experts to testify, regardless of how they come to their conclusions, their level of mold related illness experience, or the plausibility of their conclusions.  The playoff football, "let them decide it on the field", approach is one that is leaving the final decisions to jurors, who inevitably bring their own "knowledge" to the courtroom.  Regardless of what "School House Rock" says, knowledge is not always power.  Sometimes "knowledge" isn't even accurate.  Take this example: 

Mr. Jones sues ABC Apartments for keeping his apartment too cold which, he claims, resulted in him having a runny nose, cough and that "achy feeling".  Mr. Jones produces a report from his family doctor that says "Mr. Jones told me it was cold in his apartment in November, so given the fact that his symptoms started in November, I believe that the low temperature caused his cold.  In addition, when he warmed up at his friend's house, the symptoms seemed to go away."  The doctor doesn't specify how cold is cold enough to make someone sick, nor does she account for the person sneezing in the cubicle next to Mr. Jones at work, or the fact that Mr. Jones had 3 colds before moving into ABC Apartments, or that during the 3 weeks between his first and second visit to the doctor, when he got better, Mr. Jones ate 37 oranges. 

ABC Apartments asks the judge to throw out this claim, because the Plaintiff can't show that A) it was too cold in the apartment because they can't define "too cold", B) if it was "too cold", that the temperature caused Mr. Jones to actually catch a cold, or that C) he didn't catch the cold from his cubicle-mate, or that D) the vitamin C in the oranges cleared up the cold, not the fact that he went to a warmer apartment.  The court denies ABC's request, saying that there is a sufficient basis for the report, and that ABC is free to beat up (verbally of course) the expert during cross examination and convince the jury that the doctor has no idea what she's talking about. 

This seems to be a reasonable decision, until my Mom is picked to sit on the jury.  As soon as my Mom hears that it was cold in the apartment, and that he has a cold, her mind would be made up.  As sure as the sun comes up in the morning, being cold gives you a cold.  There is no disagreement, believe me.  It doesn't matter if ABC produces the President of the Hot and Cold Association of America to testify that they took the temperature in the apartment, and its 59 degrees.  And while that might be mildly chilly, it’s definitely not cold, and besides, being mildly chilly doesn't cause any sort of illness.  There has been no such proof ever produced.  In my Mom's head, however, that Plaintiff wins 10 times out of 10.  Case closed.  The question then is, shouldn't the court have excluded this testimony to prevent my Mom from using what she "knows" to be true, even if there was no real causal connection?  Shouldn't the court know better than to allow an expert to testify that will at best confuse a jury and at worst confirm inaccurate "common knowledge".

The New Jersey Appellate Division thinks not.  In an unpublished opinion, the court recently permitted a case to go forward where a tenant claimed to have been injured by exposure to toxic mold.  In Smith v. Northridge at Edison, the Plaintiff's doctor, relying on the Plaintiff's explanation of the facts as she believed them to be, submitted a report that said essentially because the water intrusion and mold growth occurred at the same time as her symptoms, and because her symptoms seemed to diminish when she left the apartment, she was obviously damaged by the mold in the apartment.  The doctor claimed that the temporal similarities led him to believe that her condition was caused by the "harmful conditions present in her residence."  The doctor had never visited the apartment and did no testing or investigation of the types of contaminants present in the apartment.  The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding that the doctors lack of specificity as to the type of mold spores, the lack of objective testing on the plaintiff, and the failure to identify that it was even mold in the apartment was fatal to the doctor's ability to testify.  There was no way to tell what the plaintiff thought was mold, actually was mold, and that whatever it was that was found type of mold caused the symptoms experienced by the plaintiff.

The Appellate Division, however, found that the temporal evidence (the fact that the "mold" apparently grew around the same time as the symptoms occurred and that the symptoms subsided when she left the apartment) and the plaintiff’s positive response to treatment, was sufficient to permit the doctor to testify at trial. The matter was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings, which means a trial will eventually be held to determine the outcome of the case.  No word whether or not my Mom has been called for jury duty.

This case is an example of the courts increasing unwillingness to dismiss marginal claims or thinly based expert opinions.  Much like the criminal justice system would rather a guilty man go free than put an innocent man behind bars, the civil courts would rather permit a marginal claim to proceed, than dismiss even a slightly meritorious claim.  Americans should have their day in court.  Recent cases on toxic mold personal injury cases are a clear example of this philosophy.  The problem is that the pendulum has swung too far in favor of allowing almost any doctor to testify as to causation of mold personal injuries, mostly based on what they have been told by their patient, and permitting jurors to ignore the science in favor of what they think they know about mold and its health effects.  Courts need to take into account the possibility of an erroneous jury decision based on facts not in evidence, and the implicit message they send to jurors when allowing a doctor to testify on matters on which they have only slightly more experience than do the jurors.  Judges need to be the gatekeepers and the Appellate Division needs to support their effort.

Some of the proposed regulations are as follows:

1. Projects consisting of three (3) or fewer units will no more than one (1) unit encumbered with FHA insurance.  Projects consisting of four (4) or more units will have no more than 30% of the total units encumbered with FHA insurance.
2. The new regulations require that at least 50% of the total units must be sold prior to endorsement of any mortgage in the project.
3. Transfer of control of the association shall pass to the owners of units no later than:  (i) 120 days after the due date 75% of the units are conveyed to unit purchasers; or (ii) one (1) year after completion of the project evidenced by the first conveyance to a unit purchaser.
4. A final certificate of occupancy is required as a precondition to project approval.  Temporary certificates of occupancy are not permitted.
5. No more than 25% of the property's total floor area in a project can be used for commercial purposes.
6. No more than 15% of the total units can be in arrears (more than 30 days past due) of their assessments.
7. A current reserve study must be no more than 12 months old.
8. Existing condominium project approvals will expire two (2) years from the date placed on the list of approved condominiums.

These lending guidelines were to be effective October 1, 2009.  The effective date has been twice postponed however.  The current effective date is December 7, 2009.

Mr. Byrne focused his presentation on when New Jersey's community associations should file their own foreclosures, and how those foreclosures are prosecuted.  He discussed community association rent receiverships, and how they serve to aggressively and creatively aid a community association in its collection of unpaid assessments.  Mr.  Byrne also discussed how community association should be handling and protecting themselves in the face of mortgage foreclosures.

You can listen to the full presentation online here. 

You can listen to the full presentation online here. 

The dispute seems to stem from an interpretation of documents, although in the opinion of the property owner, there is no ambiguity and no resident will be asked to leave.  It seems as if in this case, as is bound to occur when a property or Association falls under multiple jurisdictions, that the various levels of government bureaucracy can not communicate sufficiently to provide a simple answer to whether or not residents are permitted to live year-round in the facility, and whether the property owner has a right to dictate otherwise.  It will be interesting to follow the results of this case, as there are many Associations across New Jersey that may or may not be incorporated, or officially recognized as a Homeowner's Association, and may not know under which agency's jurisdiction they fall under. 

If a unit fails inspection, it cannot be occupied until it passes. If it’s already occupied at the time of inspection, then the owner has 30 days from that time to make repairs or corrections. An owner of a rental may get another five days to make repairs after re-inspection within the 30-day period.  Of interest to condominium owners who rent their units, each condo unit will be considered a separate rental, which will require a separate inspection.  However, a valid inspection from the Department of Community Affairs, which inspects condominiums and multiple dwellings every 5 years to ensure compliance with the construction, housing and fire codes, will satisfy the license requirements, at least for the year that the DCA inspects the condo.  Check with your local municipal offices to see if there are similar requirements for renting your condominium unit or house.