Bell Tower Condominium Association vs. Haffert (New Jersey)

Bell Tower Condominium Association vs. Haffert (New Jersey)

Bell Tower Condominium is a five-unit condominium with a five-member board of trustees. On May 30, 2010, at the request of a number of unit owners and upon notice to all unit owners, the Condominium Association held a meeting of the members to elect five trustees. The defendants did not attend, but defendant Pat Haffert was elected a trustee nonetheless. Immediately after the election, the newly elected trustees held a board meeting and voted to specially assess all the units for needed repairs. Because the defendants' unit is larger than the other four, their share of the special assessment was larger than the other four units' shares. Since he did not attend the membership meeting and did not know he had been elected to the board, defendant Pat Haffert did not participate in the board's meeting at which the special assessment was approved.

The defendants disagreed with other unit owners over what repairs were necessary and whether the board that authorized the assessment was properly elected. They refused to pay their share of the special assessment, so the Association sued them for the money. The defendants then demanded alternative dispute resolution (ADR), purportedly pursuant to N.J.S.A 46:8B-14(k), arguing that the dispute over the special assessment was a "housing-related dispute." The trial court granted summary judgement in favor of the Association. The defendants appealed, claiming that because the dispute was a housing-related dispute, the trial court should have dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice and ordered the parties to participate in ADR, as required by Finderne Heights Condominium Association, Inc. vs. Rabinowitz, 390 N.J. Super. 154, 915, A.2d 16 (App. Div. 2007). On appeal, the Appellate Division held that the dispute was a "housing-related dispute" so that the defendants were entitled to ADR and remanded the matter to the trial court for an order requiring that the complaint be submitted to ADR.

Brief: CAI's Amicus Brief
Prior Ruling: Appellate Court Decision
Status: Amicus Brief Denied
CAI Amicus Brief Author: HILL WALLACK LLP
CAI Amicus Brief Review Committee: G. Lanier Coulter, Esq; Timothy Howett, Esq; Jennifer Loheac, Esq; Robert Rowland, Esq; Steven Sugarman, Esq

Amicus Curiae Briefs

Amicus curiae briefs allow CAI to educate a court about important legal and policy issues in cases related directly to the community association industry. If your association, municipality or state is being faced with a poorly formulated legal opinion, please consider contacting CAI and submitting an application for an amicus brief. If you have any questions, contact CAI's Government and Public Affairs department at [email protected] 

  • Brief Request Submission Procedure

    Amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs allow organizations with an expertise in a certain area of the law to educate a court about the legal issues in a particular case.

    Learn more about submission procedures

  • Brief Request Review Procedure

    Amicus requests submitted to CAI shall be reviewed by an Amicus Curiae Advisory Committee (Amicus Committee). An Amicus Curiae Review Panel shall vote by e-mail or via conference call on the request.
    Learn more about review procedures