|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 12, 2001
|
Case No: DOCKET NO. C-121-2000 - Committee for a Better Twin Rivers RIVERS v Twin R
|
|
New Jersey
Superior Court
County of MERCER COUNTY
Branch: NEW JERSEY CHANCERY DIVISION
|
COMMITTEE FOR A BETTER TWIN RIVERS (CBTR)
Represented by: FRANK ASKIN, ESQ., LENORA LAPIDUS, ESQ.
v.
TWIN RIVERS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION (TRHA); TWIN RIVERS COMMUNITY TRUST
|
Summary
This is an equitable action against the defendants for temporary and permanent injunctive relief and declaratory judgement. The challenge is based upon the STATE constitution, not the Federal constitution.
This lawsuit is still in the discovery stages as of 5/13/2003.
|
|
Causes of Action: COUNT 1. POLITICAL SIGNS
COUNT 2. ACCESS TO THE COMMUNITY ROOM
COUNT 3. ACCESS TO THE TWIN RIVERS TODAY NEWSLETTER
COUNT 4. TAPE-RECORDING OF OPEN MEETINGS OF THE TRAH
COUNT 5. ACCESS TO FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS
COUNT 6. RESOLUTION 2000-1
COUNT 7. ACCESS
|
Current information/Final Decision
This case is still in the discovery phase (5/13/2003).
(Update from by Nancy Levy) |
|
Lawsuit Text
FRANK ASKIN, ESQ.
Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic
Attorney for Plaintiffs
on behalf of the ACLU of NJ
LENORA LAPIDUS, ESQ.
American Civil Liberties Union
Of New Jersey Foundation
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CHANCERY DIVISION-MERCER COUNTY
COMMITTEE FOR A BETTER
TWIN RIVERS (CBTR);
Plaintiffs, DOCKET NO. C-121-2000
vs.
TWIN RIVERS HOMEOWNERS' CIVIL ACTION
ASSOCIATION (TRHA); TWIN
RIVERS COMMUNITY TRUST;
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Defendants.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
2. This is an equitable action against the defendants for temporary and
permanent injunctive relief and declaratory judgment.
3. Defendants have engaged and are engaging in actions and practices
that deny to plaintiffs the right of democratic participation in the governing affairs of the Twin Rivers Homeowners' Association (TRHA) as guaranteed to them by common law, statute and the New Jersey Constitution.
4. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to protect their rights and seek equitable relief to prevent further injury that cannot be compensated with monetary damages.
COUNT ONE
[POLITICAL SIGNS]
53. On information and belief, the restrictions against posting signs on one's
own lawn more than three feet from a house are selectively enforced against supporters of CBTR.
Wherefore plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
• Injunctive relief requiring the Board to allow the posting of political signs on their own property and on common elements under reasonable regulation.
• Reasonable attorneys fees and legal expenses
• Any other relief that the Court determines equitable or just.
COUNT TWO
[ACCESS TO THE COMMUNITY ROOM]
Wherefore plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
• A declaration that TRHA Resolution 98-15 denies them equal protection of the laws and unreasonably and unconstitutionally violates Plaintiffs' right to access to the community room on a fair and equitable basis.
• Temporary and permanent injunctions mandating TRHA to allow Plaintiffs to utilize the community room in the same manner as other similarly situated entities.
• Reasonable attorney fees and legal expenses.
• Any other relief that the Court determines equitable or just.
COUNT THREE
[ACCESS TO THE TWIN RIVERS TODAY NEWSLETTER]
77. A recent Community Associations Institute (CAI) poll indicates that 93% of
homeowners in planned unit communities read their community newsletters. See http://www.cairf.org/research/gallup-9.html.
Wherefore plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
• A declaratory judgment that the TRT newspaper is a common element.
• A declaratory judgment that all TR residents should have equal access for expression of their views concerning the management of the community.
• A permanent injunction enjoining the president of the Board from using TRT as his own personal political trumpet and requiring the Board to create rules for equal access to TRT by all TRHA members.
• Reasonable attorney fees and legal expenses.
• Any other relief that the Court determines equitable or just.
COUNT FOUR
[TAPE-RECORDING OF OPEN MEETINGS OF THE TRHA]
79. The Board of Trustees' Secretary tape records all Board meetings. The Board does not permit members of Twin Rivers' access to these tapes. On information and belief, after the Secretary prepares the minutes, she then destroys the tapes.
80. TRHA members frequently contest the accuracy of the minutes of the TRHA meeting.
81. Under the state law all board meetings must be open to the TRHA members.
Wherefore plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
• An injunction requiring the TRHA Board to allow the tape recording of the Board meetings.
• A declaratory judgment stating that members of the TRHA have the right to tape record all open TRHA meetings.
• Reasonable attorney fees and legal expenses.
• Any other relief that the Court determines equitable or just.
COUNT FIVE
[ACCESS TO FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS]
89. The Board abused its discretion when it denied Plaintiff Bar-Akiva's requests for financial documents.
90. TRHA is a non-profit corporation which is bound by New Jersey non-profit corporation statutes. N.J.S.A. 15A:5-28, which is based on N.J.S.A. 14A:5-24 of the New Jersey Business Corporation Act, provides for access by members to corporation books and records. TRHA is bound by this statute and must provide access to the books and records of the corporation to members of the TRHA.
Wherefore plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
• Temporary and permanent injunction disallowing the TRHA Board from denying access to financial documents without specification of the reasons for concealment.
• Reasonable attorney fees and legal expenses.
• Any other relief that the Court determines equitable or just.
COUNT SIX
[RESOLUTION 2000-1]
93. In February 2000 the TRHA passed Resolution 2000-1 purporting to
provide the Board with the authority to discipline members suspected of disclosing allegedly confidential information.
94. On March 1, 2000, Defendant Scott notified Plaintiff Dianne
of her suspected violations of Resolution 2000-1. All but one of these alleged violations had occurred prior to the enactment of Resolution 2000-1. The allegations were not supported by any details or documentation of the specific acts which constituted her violations.
99. Resolution 2000-1 is overly broad, vague, and encroaches on the individual rights of Board members and residents.
100. Resolution 2000-1 unduly burdens Board members and denies TRHA
members access to vital information concerning their community.
101. According to the DCA, Sections "v" through "vii" of Resolution 2000-1 are in violation of the Planned Real Estate Full Disclosure Act, N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46a. (See Exh. F)
102. Resolution 2000-1 was promulgated in bad faith and is arbitrary and capricious.
103. Resolution 2000-1 has the appearance of being intended for the sole purpose of removing a certain Board member, which is violative of the election and removal process for Twin Rivers Board members. According to the TRHA by-laws, Board members are to be removed only by a vote of the members of the community. Resolution 2000-1 is an effort to circumvent the established procedure for Board member removal.
104. Resolution 2000-1 serves no legitimate purpose.
Wherefore plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
• A declaratory judgment that Resolution 2000-1 is in violation of N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46a and common law.
• A declaratory judgment that Plaintiff McCarthy never violated any resolution and her censure be expunged from the records of the TRHA as though it had never occurred.
• Reasonable attorney fees and legal expenses.
• Any other relief that the Court determines equitable or just.
COUNT SEVEN
[ACCESS TO VOTING LISTS]
116. A member of the Board, Plaintiff Dianne McCarthy, has been denied
access to the list of eligible voters. On information and belief, other members of the Board do have access to the list of eligible voters.
117. Currently it is unknown what percentage of voters are ineligible to vote and for what reasons.
118. In order to effectively campaign for the elected positions of the TRHA, plaintiffs need access to the lists of eligible voters. The list is necessary to identify and contact eligible voters.
119. The TRCT has recently allowed for conditional access by Plaintiffs to the voter lists. The TRCT has only allowed for the inspection of lists of all Twin Rivers residents without any distinction between those who are eligible and ineligible to vote. In addition, the TRCT has required that an overly broad and unreasonable indemnification agreement be signed before the release of the list. (See Exh. G)
Wherefore plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
• Temporary and permanent injunctive relief requiring the Board to allow the plaintiffs access to lists of eligible voters without unreasonable conditions.
• Reasonable attorney fees and legal expenses.
• Any other relief that the Court determines equitable or just.
COUNT EIGHT
[ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION]
121. N.J.S.A. 45:22A-4(c)and its legislative history, Senate Act 217, clearly requires defendants to "provide a fair and efficient procedure for the resolution of disputes between individual unit owners and the association . . . which shall be readily available as an alternative to litigation."
122. The current alternative dispute resolution mechanism at Twin Rivers is governed by Resolution 99-4, which was promulgated on March 25, 1999. Resolution 99-4 provides for an inadequate and ineffective system of dispute resolution.
123. Resolution 99-4 limits the definition of a dispute. Paragraph 5 of Resolution 99-4 states that, "[a] dispute shall not include issues relating to (i) the payment or nonpayment of regular and/or special common expense assessments levied against a Unit in accordance with the governing documents, (ii) election issue, nor (iii) alleged noncompliance by the Association or the Association Board with the governing documents or applicable law. Paragraph 5, in essence, exempts the Board from any and all alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in violation of New Jersey law. In particular, it denies ADR for disputes involving assessments for disenfranchisement.
126. On information and belief, the absence of a convenient and inexpensive mechanism for resolving disputes between the TRHA and its members has resulted in the disfranchisement of many other TRHA members. Those members have been assessed various amounts for alleged infractions of TRHA rules and failure to pay disputed assessments. If such members are unwilling to pay those fines under protest and undertaking the substantial expense of a lawsuit against the TRHA for reimbursal, their voting rights are suspended.
127. Thus, by refusing to honor state law and create an alternate dispute resolution system, the TRHA violates both the members' statutory right to an effective dispute resolution system as well as the right to vote.
Wherefore plaintiffs request pray for the following relief:
• Permanent injunction requiring the Board to establish a dispute resolution process as described herein.
• Temporary and permanent injunctions re-establishing the voting rights of Plaintiff Bruce Fritzges and other TRHA members similarly situated.
• Reasonable attorney fees and legal expenses.
• Any other relief that the Court determines equitable or just.
COUNT NINE
[DENIAL OF VOTING EQUALITY]
130. Since the Twin Rivers Board exercises powers of management similar to those exercised by municipal corporations, this weighted voting scheme violates principles of equal protection embodied in Article I, Paragraph I of the New Jersey Constitution.
131. The TRHA governing board, although elected by TRHA members, is the
product of an electoral system that is a substantial variance from the one-person, one-vote principle guaranteed by the New Jersey Constitution.
Wherefore plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
• Declaratory judgment that the weighting voting provision of the TRHA by-laws and charter violates the New Jersey Constitution and must be reformed.
• Reasonable attorneys fees and expenses.
• Any other relief that the Court determines equitable or just.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for the relief requested in Counts 1 through 9.
_________________________
Frank Askin,
Attorney for Plaintiffs
On behalf of the American Civil
Liberties Union of New Jersey
(973) 353-5687
Lenora Lapidus, Esq.
American Civil Liberties Union
Of New Jersey Foundation
55 Halsey Street
Newark, NJ 07102
Date: February 12, 2001
|
|
| |
|
View Comments (4) | Post a comment |
| |
|
|
|
Submitted Files
|
| |
Filename
|
Description
|
File Type
|
File Size
|
Click to download
|
| |
CAIBRIEF.pdf
|
CAI's Dec. 2004 Amicus Curiae brief concerning the Committee for the Betterment of Twin Rivers Homeowners Association appeal to the NJ Appeals Court, C-121-0002
|
PDF document, version 1.3
|
129KB
|
Download
|
| |
TwinRiverOpinion.pdf
|
Twin Rivers New Jersey Appellate Court Opinion - February 7, 2006
|
PDF document, version 1.4
|
199KB
|
Download
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
