New Jersey Attorney Law Review Blog

Depending upon the claims and defenses raised in the context of a particular civil lawsuit, the information contained in a party’s business or personal income tax return may be a relevant area of inquiry for pretrial discovery. However, most taxpayers will not voluntarily surrender their tax returns simply because the information is being sought by the other side’s lawyer. To the contrary, a demand for production of income tax returns is often met with resistance. Thus, before seeking the production of an adversary litigant’s income tax returns as part of pretrial discovery demands, careful thought must be given as to why the information is needed, what it may help prove, and whether there is sufficient reasons or “good cause” to be demanding it?  The scope of discovery in New Jersey civil litigation matters is dictated by R. 4:10-2, which allows for the “discovery of any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending ac...

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 proper...

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 l...

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 f...

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 ...

    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 w...