Twin Rivers HOA Legal Action: short history

In 2000, nine complaints were filed against the Twin Rivers HOA (Complaints):

1. Political signs
2. Access to HOA community room
3. Access to HOA newsletter
4. Taping of HOA meetings
5. Access to financial information
6. Unconstitutionality challenge to HOA ruling (discipling of members)
7. Access voting lists
8. ADR
9. Denial of equal voting (not property based).


In 2004, the trial court ruled in favor of the homeowners on counts (complaints) 2, 6 and 7 and for the HOA on the other counts (Decision). Each party appealed their adverse decisions: the homeowners appealed on counts 1, 2 (in part), 3, 5, 8, 9 and the HOA appealed on 2 (in part), 6 and 7.

In February 2006, the Appellate Court rendered its opinion (Opinion). It affirmed the decision for the homeowners, and for the HOA on counts 5, 8 and 9. It remanded to the courts for further determination in view of its opinion that TRHA [HOA] was not subject to limitations imposed by the New Jersey Constitution and that the business judgment rule and contractual standards applied."

"We disagree with the trial court's determination that TRHA is not subject to constitutional limitations such as those imposed on public sector actors. The basis for the trial court's ruling was that no governmental entity had delegated governmental powers to TRHA, and that TRHA performed no inherently governmental functions. In arriving at our conclusion that this ruling was erroneous, we eschew the use of the term "quasi-municipal" because, in the context of the issues before us, it tends to beg the question and adds nothing to the necessary inquiries."

"We reverse the general ruling in respect of the fundamental rights exercises implicated that TRHA was not subject to limitations imposed by the New Jersey Constitution and that the business judgment rule and contractual standards applied. We remand plaintiffs' claims in counts one, two, and three of the complaint for reconsideration under the proper standard."

The appeal to the NJ Supreme Court contests the opinion of the Appellate Court, and the remand to the trial court is held in obeyance pending the Supreme Court's opinion. If the Court supports the Appeals Court, then the remanded items are open for further decision by the trial court in light of the bold statement quoted above.

On January 4, 2007, oral qargments were heard before the NJ Supreme Court, and a ruling is pending.