New Jersey Attorney Law Review Blog

In New Jersey, a homeowner can lose his or her home for failure to pay real estate taxes to the town/city where the property is located.   Unlike mortgage foreclosure cases where the property is required to go to a judicial sale and the homeowner is given one final shot to save the home by “redeeming” or paying off the judgment within 10 days from the sale date, in tax foreclosure cases there is no judicial sale and the opportunity to redeem is thus lost once the final judgment is entered.  In other words, the entry of a final judgment in real estate tax foreclosure cases serves to transfer title of the property to the foreclosing plaintiff. What, if anything, can the homeowner do in this situation to recover the property?     In a recent case handled by our office, we petitioned the Court to void the tax foreclosure judgment and to permit our clients to payoff or redeem the tax sale certificate on the basis that the plaintiff tax investor did not properly serve the Complaint o

New Jersey has strict rules when it comes to home improvement contracts in excess of $500, the overriding purpose of which is to protect consumers from unscrupulous contractors.  The New Jersey Administrative Code § 13:45A-16.2(12)(i)-(vi) sets forth the requirements necessary in a home improvement contract.  A violation of these written requirements is a violation of the statute. N.J.A.C. 13:45A-16.2(12) states in pertinent part:  All home improvement contracts for a purchase price in excess of $500, and all changes in the terms and conditions thereof shall be in writing.  Home improvement contracts which are required by this subsection to be in writing, and all changes in the terms and conditions thereof, shall be signed by all parties thereto, and shall clearly and accurately set forth in legible form and in understandable language all terms and conditions of the contract, including but not limited to, the following: The legal name and business address of the s

In an unpublished decision issued on May 21, 2013, a New Jersey appeals court held that a landlord was not entitled to evict his residential tenant, an 89-year old blind man with diabetes, because of the tenant's refusal to sign a new lease.  Ochieng v. Bloss, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-0703-12T2 . This decision reversed the trial court's ruling which was in favor of the landlord. The appeals court concluded that the landlord failed to follow the required notice procedures under the New Jersey Anti-Eviction Act, and that therefore the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.  The appellate reversal is a bittersweet victory for the tenant though, because the landlord can re-file a new complaint once he has issued the proper pre-lawsuit notices. Walter Bloss, the tenant in this case, is a disabled veteran suffering from diabetes and heart problems. He is also legally blind, and was 89-years old at the time his landlord fi

I couldn't find a better example to illustrate the problem with our judicial system.  In a recently unpublished decision of the New Jersey Appellate Division,   Hernandez v. North Jersey Neurosurgical Associates , Superior Court of New Jersey, Docket No. A-0890-12T2, the appeals court reversed a Hudson County trial judge's decision to enter default against a medical doctor whose attorney was unavailable to appear for the trial call because he was scheduled to be on trial in another case in Monmouth County, NJ . Demonstrating a rigid approach to justice, the trial court refused to postpone a trial date in this medical malpractice case due to the unavailability of one of the defendant doctor's attorneys, preferring instead to punish the doctor by entering default against him and essentially leaving the doctor in no-man's land. In this case, the attorney had designated himself as the doctor's trial attorney in accordance with NJ Court Rule 4:25-4 , meaning that

  It is not too difficult to Imagine the following scenario.  There is bitter litigation between 2 or more parties that has dragged on for several years.  Each side is represented by legal counsel, and each has spent thousands of dollars in legal fees trying to posture the case in their favor.  A trial is approaching shortly.   The parties are each growing weary of the case; it has become too time consuming and expensive, and the law of diminishing returns has set in for all involved. This is why the overwhelming majority of civil disputes ultimately settle before trial.  Lawyers know it, and so to the clients and judges.    In fact, our court system is designed to encourage and foster settlements .   In the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,, all contract and business law disputes are generally subject to mandatory mediation with a court-appointed mediator who agrees to volunteer up to 2 hours of his/her time trying to foster settlement of the c

    In an unpublished decision issued on January 11, 2013, a NJ appeals court upheld the firing of a first-grade teacher in the Paterson school district who called her students "future criminals" in a Facebook post.   In the Matter of the Tenure Hearing of Jennifer O'Brien , Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-2452-11T4 .  This case represents another example of the consequences of misusing popular social media sites.      In this case a two-judge appeals panel ruled that the teacher's derogatory Facebook posting was not protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that her "right to express those comments was outweighed by the district's interest in the efficient operation of its schools."  The teacher, Jennifer O'Brien, employed as a Paterson teacher since 1998, was assigned to teach a first grade class of 23 students.  Almost all of her first graders were 6 years old ,

When a construction supplier sells materials on credit to a contractor with multiple open accounts, receives only partial payments without instructions from the contractor as to whose jobs/accounts the payments should be applied to, and later seeks to enforce a construction lien claim against a single property owner for the unpaid balance, the supplier must make inquiry as to the source of the funds obtained by the contractor to pay the supplier.   The suppliers duty in this regard extends to circumstances where a reasonable supplier should suspect the contractor has not used an owner's funds to pay for materials supplied for that owner.  The purpose in requiring a supplier to ascertain the source of its customer's funds is to ensure that the supplier has properly allocated its customer's payments to the correct jobs/accounts.   A supplier that fails to fulfill this duty sacrifices its rights under the Construction Lien Law, a NJ appeals court concluded in  L&W

  There are significant legal distinctions between owning property as tenants by the entirety versus owning property as tenants in common.  Understanding these legal distinctions is important when it comes to purchasing  residential real estate with friends, business partners, or relatives. A joint tenancy is a form of property ownership where the co-owners own the property equally.  If one joint tenant dies, the surviving joint tenant automatically inherits the entire property.   By contrast, a tenancy in common is a form of co-ownership of property that does not include a right of survivorship.   In a tenancy in common, each co-owner's portion can be passed to beneficiaries named in a will, which may or may not be someone who the surviving co-tenant ever envisioned owning the property with or living with.  In New Jersey, two people, other than married couples, are presumed to own property as tenants in common unless they've otherwise specified in the deed.   

  In a recent decision that merits the attention of borrowers and lenders in commercial real estate foreclosures, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that a lender's acceptance of numerous late payments did not constitute a modification to the mortgage or result in curing the borrower's mortgage default.  Bank of America v. Princeton Park Associates, L.L.C. , Docket No. A-0927-11T3 (App Div., November 8, 2012).   Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the lender. The facts of the case are rather straightforward.  Princeton Park Associates involved a commercial real estate loan transaction. The lender’s loan documents contained the standard default and acceleration provisions. Also, the promissory note included the following provisions: (i) no failure by the lender to accelerate the debt pursuant to the default provisions would constitute a waiver of the lender’s rights to insist on s

--> In this post I discuss the issue of mortgage fraud as it relates to a borrower's claim that the signature appearing on the mortgage is a forgery.   On September 19, 2012 I am scheduled to try a case involving this very issue on behalf of a private mortgage lender seeking to enforce a mortgage pledged as collateral in connection with a business loan transaction.   Mock v. Bae, et al. , Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No.: F-58854-10.    Click here to download a copy of my trial brief filed with the Court. Succinctly summarizing from the trial brief, in New Jersey duly executed, notarized and recorded mortgage instruments  are presumptively valid and enforceable, and are presumed to have been made for good and valuable consideration.. In re Shaw , 51 F.Supp. 566, 568 (D.N.J. 1943), and N.J.S.A. 12A:3-308.  Under New Jersey law, a mortgage instrument must be duly acknowledged, proved and certified at the time the lo

--> In an opinion issued on July 31, 2012, the New Jersey Supreme Court declared that a pet owner is not entitled to recover damages for emotional distress caused by witnessing the traumatic death of her dog.  Joyce McDougall v. Charlot Lamm (A-99-10) (067436) . The facts are relatively straightforward.  On June 7, 2007, plaintiff Joyce McDougall was walking her dog when a large dog belonging to defendant Charlot Lamm ran out, grabbed McDougall's dog by the neck, and picked it up and shook it several times before dropping it, causing the death of her dog.  McDougall bought the dog as a puppy for $200 in 1997, and believed a new puppy would cost $1,395. At the trial level McDougall described her pet as a “friendly, lively, energetic dog” that loved children and was capable of performing numerous tricks.  McDougall testified that the dog was very happy to see her when she came home, slept in a bed near hers, and was with her much of the time.  McDougall a