Good News For Condo Collections

by:  Katharine A. Muscalino

Collections have become an area of increasing concern for condominium associations, as unit owners struggle to pay their maintenance fees on time and in full during the current economic downturn.  As unit owners’ debt continues to rise, associations are left with few options to collect: a lien on the unit and a lawsuit against the individual unit owner.

Many condominium associations have been frustrated in their attempts to collect from a unit owner individually, as Special Civil Court judges are often sympathetic to delinquent unit owners, offering extensions, scrutinizing certifications of amounts due, and reducing or eliminating the association’s ability to collect attorneys’ fees.  Grandview at Riverwalk Port Imperial Condominium Association is one such association, but its frustrations were recently assuaged on appeal in Grandview at Riverwalk Port Imperial Condominium Association, Inc. v. Han

In this case, the association sued a unit owner for failure to pay maintenance fees, only to have the Special Civil Court inexplicably deny their demand for attorneys’ fees.  The Association appealed the judge’s rejection of their demand and the Appellate Division reversed the Special Civil Court, finding that the fees were authorized by statute and by the Association’s governing documents.  Noting that the unit owner had not objected to reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees and that the Appellate Division itself perceived “nothing unreasonable” in the attorneys’ fees, the Appellate Division remanded the matter to have the judgment amended to reflect the attorneys fees. 

When Is Time Really Of The Essence For Purposes Of Attacking A Final Judgment Or Order?

by:  Steven P. Gouin

In a recent decision, Orner v. Liu, the Appellate Division supplied some clarity on the issue of how long a party has to move for relief from a final judgment or order.  Unlike motions for relief from default judgments, which are routinely granted, motions under R. 4:50 are governed by a higher standard of proof, are appropriate in only six specific situations, and must be made “within a reasonable time” after entry of the final judgment or order.  What has caused some confusion is the requirement, found in Rule 4:50-2, that motions based on three of the six situations — mistake, newly discovered evidence, and fraud — must be brought “within a reasonable time . . . not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.”  Does this mean that one year is presumptively reasonable in these situations?  According to the Appellate Division in Orner, the answer to this question is no. While motions like these are always fact sensitive, Orner will be instructive going forward because there are only a handful of reported decisions construing the limits of reasonableness under Rule 4:50.

Continue reading “When Is Time Really Of The Essence For Purposes Of Attacking A Final Judgment Or Order?”