Tag: faulty

When Do Condominium Associations Have Standing To Sue Under The Consumer Fraud Act?

by:  Peter J. Gallagher

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division restated and clarified the rules regarding when a condominium association has standing to sue a developer.  In Belmont Condominium Association v. Geibel, an association sued the sponsor/developer/contractor of the Belmont, a seven-story, thirty-four unit condominium in Hoboken, asserting common law fraud and negligence claims along with statutory claims under both the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) and The Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act (“PREDFDA”).  The claims arose out of the allegedly faulty construction of the Belmont, and certain pre-construction statements from the developer, including that it had “overseen the building and renovation of Over 400 Single Family & Condominium Homes.”  (Although largely irrelevant to the issues addressed by the Appellate Division, it turned out that the Belmont was actually the first building that the developer’s owner and general manager had ever constructed.)  As it relates to the faulty construction, the association alleged that the building was “plagued by water leaks” almost immediately after construction was complete.  These leaks impacted both the individual units and the common elements.  After years of repairs that did not correct the problem, the association sued the developer.  The association argued that construction defects were the cause of the water filtration, while the developer blamed the problems on poor and inadequate maintenance.        

Among other things, the developer in Belmont argued that the association lacked standing to bring claims under the CFA.  At the outset, the Appellate Division observed that New Jersey courts take a liberal approach to standing, and  have historically given wide recognition to suits by condominium associations.  It then analyzed the language of the New Jersey Condominium Act (“NJCA”) to determine whether the association had standing.  As it related to claims arising out of damage to the common elements, the Appellate Division held that the association had standing to sue because the NJCA vests condominium associations with the “exclusive right”(emphasis in original) to sue a developer for defects pertaining to the common elements, and generally prohibits individual unit owners from doing so. 

The Appellate Division rejected the developer’s argument that the association lacked standing because it could not demonstrate reliance by the original purchasers on any of the alleged misstatements.  On this point, the Appellate Division noted that reliance is not an element required to sustain a claim under the CFA.  The Appellate Division also rejected the developer’s argument that the association could only recover damages for the unit owners who actually sustained damage as a result of the developer’s alleged misrepresentations.  The Appellate Division held that because the NJCA allows associations to sue for damages to the common areas sustained by “any or all” of the unit owners, it was entitled to recover all of the damages necessary to repair any damages, not a prorated amount based on the number of unit owners who identified damages. 

However, the Appellate Division held that the association lacked standing to sue for damages to the individual units because the NJCA only vests it with authority to sue or be sued in connection with damages to common elements.  In Belmont, the damages associated with individual units all related to the windows, which the Appellate Division held were “personal to the unit owners,” and therefore not part of the Belmont’s common elements.  On this point, the Appellate Division reviewed the definition of common elements contained in both the NJCA and the master deed for the Belmont, neither of which identified windows as common elements.  Once the Appellate Division concluded that the windows were unit elements, not common elements, its decision on standing was a simple one because it had already concluded that an association has standing to sue for damage to common elements, but lacks standing to sue for unit elements.   

Chickens Continue Coming Home To Roost For Lenders And Mortgage Companies Involved In Foreclosure Crisis

by:  Peter J. Gallagher and Steven P. Gouin

Our regular followers know that many of our pieces focus on the foreclosure industry, and with good reason, as over 2 million American homes are currently in foreclosure.  Add to this troubling statistic the recent allegations of shoddy paperwork at many of the nation's largest mortgage companies and the law firms representing them, and you have the makings of a compelling story of a giant foreclosure-induced catastrophe.  While homeowners have been feeling the pain from this crisis for years now, the catastrophe struck close to home recently for many of the banks and mortgage companies at the heart of the foreclosure crisis. 

In an article entitled “Confidential Federal Audits Accuse Five Biggest Mortgage Firms Of Defrauding Taxpayers,” the Huffington Post is reporting that a recent federal audit conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) revealed that five of the nation's largest foreclosure firms, including industry giants like CitiBank and Bank of America, are guilty of fraud under the Federal False Claims Act.  Specifically, the audit concluded that the banks “filed for federal reimbursement on foreclosed homes that sold for less than the outstanding loan balance using defective and faulty documents.”  According to the article, federal prosecutors are debating whether to use the audits as the basis for criminal and civil sanctions against the mortgage companies. 

At the same time, the New York Times is reporting that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has requested information and documents from three major banks – Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley – about their mortgage-backed securities operations (“NY State Investigates Banks’ Role In Financial Crisis”).  This suggests that Mr. Schneiderman may be launching an investigation into the banks' practices, which many believe led to billions in mortgage losses.  One of the most interesting aspects of the article is the suggestion that, by requesting this information from the banks, Mr. Schneiderman is “operating independently of peers from other states who are negotiating a broad settlement with large banks over foreclosure practices.”  The article notes that Mr. Schneiderman has been unwilling to join this proposed settlement because the banks are demanding that it include a clause whereby regulators agree not to conduct additional investigations into the banks’ activities during the mortgage crisis.