New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Argument in Twin Rivers Concerning Common Interest Community Associations
Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Association
On Thursday, January 4, 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard oral argument on the matter of Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Association. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming opinion – which is not expected for several months – may prove to be the one of the most influential decisions involving common interest community associations in over a decade.
At issue in Twin Rivers is the question of whether the New Jersey Constitution’s speech and assembly clauses should be applied to limit the authority of homeowners’ associations and, if so, under what circumstances. In the decision on appeal, Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Association, 383 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 2006), which was authored by Judge Kestin, the Appellate Division found that common interest community associations have supplanted certain responsibilities once undertaken by towns and municipalities and that state constitutional rights to free speech outweigh certain restrictions imposed by homeowners associations, even though such property is private rather than public.
The argument before the Justices of the Supreme Court was fascinating and even heated at times, sprinkled with moments of levity. The Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Association argued that the Appellate Division’s decision to apply a constitutional standard was too expansive and advocated instead the use of the “business judgment rule”, which was utilized by the Trial Court in its original decision. The Association asserted that Judge Kestin “blurred the distinction” between a public entity, such as a township or municipality, and a private entity, such as a homeowners’ association, arguing that the state Constitution can only apply to public entities. Committee for a Better Twin Rivers – the group of residents who challenged the Association’s rules and regulations – argued that the Court should embrace the Appellate Division’s decision, stating that here the common interest community Association effectively stifled the residents’ freedoms of speech and assembly and created a “bubble of no-speech zones”.
During the argument, Chief Justice James R. Zazzali went so far as to call the Appellate Division’s decision “creative,” and focused on whether the Association should be considered the functional equivalent of a town or municipality. Justice Barry T. Albin commented that the Appellate Division’s decision appeared to require submission of even the most trivial issues – such as the posting of political signs or access to a community newsletter or common element like a meeting room – to be heard by a Superior Court Judge, which would open the floodgates for increased amounts of litigation. But perhaps the most vocal advocate for the Association’s position was Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto, who called the Committee’s various challenges of the Association’s rules “petty, not constitutional.”
The Supreme Court will now be left to determine whether the Appellate Division’s decision ultimately went too far and was too expansive, leaving common interest community associations without clear and defined parameters as to the ability to enforce their rules and regulations, as well as to uphold the rights and responsibilities of their members.
Stark & Stark will continue to monitor this significant case and provide timely updates. If you would like to discuss the Twin Rivers opinion and how it affects condominium associations in more detail, please contact one of the attorneys in Stark & Stark’s Community Associations Group.
Reader interactions
4 Replies to “New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Argument in Twin Rivers Concerning Common Interest Community Associations”
Comments are closed.
I am curious about this matter and how it will possibly change the way in which all homeowners associations are governed, and the standards of practices placed on the association. It is my understanding that associations have long since been allowed to maintain those practices (except restricting membership based on race and other protected areas) that would, in the opinion of the association members, create a utopian environment. Any thought on how this decision will change the basic nature of the association far outside of the placement of signs and using the newsletter? I am curious how others in the legal community view this area. Thank you in advance for your views and comments…Jess
Jess,
Thank you for your question.
As you mentioned, the forthcoming Twin Rivers decision absolutely has the potential for changing the way community associations are governed. As private entities, associations enjoy certain duties and responsibilities that differ from towns and cities, which is why the Appellate Division’ decision applying the same constitutional standards to association as currently exist for municipalities is so groundbreaking and/or potentially troublesome (depending on your point of view).
David Byrne (Co-Chair of the Stark & Stark’s Community Associations Group) and I have been monitoring this case for some time. We would be happy to discuss this matter with you in more detail if you are interested. Perhaps we can set up a conference call to discuss this in more detail? Please feel free to call me or e-mail me with any additional questions or if you would like to set up a conference call.
Again, thank you for taking the time to read our blog, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Jon Katz
Can you please tell me if the court upheld members being able to use the community trustees paper that is distributed every month, to rebut comments that were addressed to certian individuals or groups.
Dear Mr. Capri:
Thank you for your e-mail in response to our blog on the Twin Rivers case.
As you know from the blog, the Supreme Court recently heard oral argument on whether to uphold or overturn the Appellate Division’s decision in this matter. In that decision, specifically regarding your question as to whether the members of the association can use the newsletter, the Appellate Division decided that the same must be analyzed using a constitutional standard rather than the “business judgment” standard. Essentially, this means that the Appellate Division considered the issue to be one of free speech, and instructed the Trial Court to review the association’s restriction based on that standard. We expect that the Supreme Court will issue its decision in the near future and will no doubt address this important issue.
Again, thank you for taking the time to read our blog, and please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.