AARP Amicus Curiae brief in Twin Rivers NJ constitutionality suit
This brief is a must read, and should be brought to the attention of your legislators. A few excerpts:
"The Hannaman Report [NJ agency report, 10 years ago]is notable for its candor and its breadth.
For example, Mr. Hannaman states: “It is obvious from the complaints [to DCA (Dept of Consumer Affairs)] that that [home]owners did not realize the extent association rules could govern their lives.” Pa237. Mr.Hannaman goes on to set forth at length numerous examples of abuse of homeowner rights by New Jersey ineffectual and inadequate safeguards prevent and remedy such abuse." P.4.
"Perhaps most alarming is the revelation that boards, or board presidents desirous of acting contrary to law, their governing documents or to fundamental democratic principles, are unstoppable without extreme owner effort and often costly litigation." P. 5.
"It is no answer to say (as Appellants do) that private contractual agreements, or the “business judgment rule,” somehow trump constitutional principles, and that New Jersey community association residents have no constitutional rights because of some sort of “waiver” arising from the documents they signed when purchasing their homes.” P. 20.
The proposition that residents of Twin Rivers have no less a right to speak than nonresidents flows inexorably from these core principles. And the same result obtains by application of the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine, and by application of the principle that servitudes that are either contrary to public policy or unconstitutional are unenforceable. P. 24.
The entire amicus curiae brief can be found here: AARP
Note: The NJ Supreme Court has yet to accept the amicus application. The HOA strongly opposes the filing of the brief, yet it had no objection to a brief by Community Associations Institute, CAI, that has a strong, non-neutral, stance with respect to the outcome of the Court's decision.
-
"The Hannaman Report [NJ agency report, 10 years ago]is notable for its candor and its breadth.
For example, Mr. Hannaman states: “It is obvious from the complaints [to DCA (Dept of Consumer Affairs)] that that [home]owners did not realize the extent association rules could govern their lives.” Pa237. Mr.Hannaman goes on to set forth at length numerous examples of abuse of homeowner rights by New Jersey ineffectual and inadequate safeguards prevent and remedy such abuse." P.4.
"Perhaps most alarming is the revelation that boards, or board presidents desirous of acting contrary to law, their governing documents or to fundamental democratic principles, are unstoppable without extreme owner effort and often costly litigation." P. 5.
"It is no answer to say (as Appellants do) that private contractual agreements, or the “business judgment rule,” somehow trump constitutional principles, and that New Jersey community association residents have no constitutional rights because of some sort of “waiver” arising from the documents they signed when purchasing their homes.” P. 20.
The proposition that residents of Twin Rivers have no less a right to speak than nonresidents flows inexorably from these core principles. And the same result obtains by application of the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine, and by application of the principle that servitudes that are either contrary to public policy or unconstitutional are unenforceable. P. 24.
The entire amicus curiae brief can be found here: AARP
Note: The NJ Supreme Court has yet to accept the amicus application. The HOA strongly opposes the filing of the brief, yet it had no objection to a brief by Community Associations Institute, CAI, that has a strong, non-neutral, stance with respect to the outcome of the Court's decision.
-
posted by Citizens for Constitutional Local Government | 8:37 AM
<< Home