Before Judges Fuentes, Koblitz and Suter. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No. C

Similar documents
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 3 November 2015

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Argued April 26, 2017 Decided May 9, Before Judges Fuentes, Carroll and Farrington.

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

By F. Clifford Gibbons, Esq. 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

CASE NO. 1D Silver Shells Corporation (Developer) appeals the partial summary judgment

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

Daniel M. Schwarz of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Appellants.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON OCTOBER 16, 2001 Session

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 18, 2009 MICHAEL D. DELORE, ET AL.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

By motion dated January 3, 2 008, the New Jersey Council. on Affordable Housing (the "Council" or "COAH") received a request

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

CONDOMINIUM FORECLOSURE

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY

[Hodges v. Sasil Corp., 189 N.J. 210, 221 (2007).]

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS. Plaintiff, Defendants.

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT JACQUELINE GRANGER AS INDEPENDENT ADMINSTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JUSTIN BOUDREAUX **********

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT. TRUSTEES OF THOMAS GRAVES LANDING CONDOMINIUM TRUST & another 1. vs. PAUL GARGANO & another.

ARIZONA TAX COURT TX /18/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Borowski v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Wis: Court of Appeals, 1st...

COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET NO. COAH THE HILLS DEVELOPMENT CO., ) Plaintiff ) v. ) TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS, ) Defendant, )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON February 25, 2000 Session

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Case No. 1:17-cv FB Case No. 1:17-cv FB. Appellant, -against-

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INC SAURAGE COMPANY INC DBA SAURAGE REALTORS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 13, 2012 Session

CASE NO. 1D Elliott Messer and Thomas M. Findley of Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2018

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES, AND MOBILE HOMES

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE November 9, 2006 Session

IN RE CLINTON TOWNSHIP, ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL HUNTERDON COUNTY ) ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session

STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT } } } } } Decision and Order on Motions for Partial Summary Judgment

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 6 June Appeal by defendants from order entered 18 July 2016 by Judge Jay D.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,906 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DAVID WEBB, Appellant,

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-765

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Environmental Division Unit Docket No Vtec

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF McDONALD COUNTY. Honorable John R. LePage, Associate Circuit Judge

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,364 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JAMES F. SHEPHERD, Appellee,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

STATE OF VERMONT DECISION ON MOTION. B & M Realty A250 Applic.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

No. 51,883-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * *

Real Estate Committee ABI Committee News

Appeal from the Order Entered May 22, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County, Civil Division, at No. CI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Submitted on Briefs August 4, 2009

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 4, 2018

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, and Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Bi-County Development of Clinton, Inc. v. Borough of High Bridge, et al (A-46-01)

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

Certiorari not Applied for COUNSEL

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 21 May 2013

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007

On July 3, 2007, the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (the "Council" or

2017COA159. No. 16CA1494, Lakewood v. Armstrong Real Property Easements Appurtenant Easement Deeds Dominant Estate

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

Transcription:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. THE HISTORIC COTSWOLD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, COTSWOLD, LLC, and Defendant-Appellant, UNION CENTER NATIONAL BANK, FRANCES P. DILLER and WILFRED DILLER, Defendants. Argued September 20, 2017 Decided October 17, 2017 Before Judges Fuentes, Koblitz and Suter On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No. C-000106-15. Luke J. Kealy argued the cause for appellant (Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith and Davis, LLP, attorneys; John D. North, of counsel and on the brief; Mr. Kealy, on the brief).

PER CURIAM Sanford F. Young argued the cause for respondent. Defendant Cotswold, LLC (Cotswald) appeals from a February 11, 2016 order granting summary judgment to plaintiff The Historic Cotswold Condominium Association, Inc. (Association) in its dispute over the right to assign and control parking spaces at The Historic Cotswold, A Condominium, a complex in the Borough of Tenafly. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the sixteen-page written opinion of Judge Menelaos W. Toskos. The procedures for establishing and governing a condominium development are set forth in the New Jersey Condominium Act (the Act). See Siddons v. Cook, 382 N.J. Super. 1, 6-7 (App. Div. 2005) (citing N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 to -38). A condominium is established by the recording of a master deed. N.J.S.A. 46:8B-8. It is governed by an association, which acts through a board of directors, whose composition is composed of members of the condominium's sponsor or developer and individual unit owners in accordance with the Act. N.J.S.A. 46:8B-12. The Cotswold Condominium contains thirteen residential units and nineteen parking spaces, six of which are indoor garage spaces and thirteen of which are outdoor spaces. Under the condominium's 2005 master deed, the parking spaces are common elements, meaning that they are available for the use of all unit owners. The master 2

deed further provides that the parking spaces may be designated as limited common elements, reserved for the benefit of a particular unit owner, through the designation of the space in the unit deed transferring ownership to the unit owner. Cotswold made numerous such assignments in the course of selling the available units. Several of the unit owners obtained one or two parking spaces as a limited common element. Other unit owners did not obtain a parking space. While the master deed is silent as to who may designate a parking space as a limited common element appurtenant to a particular unit, the association's by-laws provide that the Association's board may "establish and enforce Rules and Regulations for parking by and the assignment of parking spaces to Unit Owners, subject to the provisions of the Master Deed, Certificate of Incorporation and these By-Laws[.]" Upon the sale of the tenth of thirteen available units in May 2007, control of the board statutorily passed to the Association, as unit owners now held "at least seventy-five percent of the available units." See N.J.S.A. 46:8B-12.1 Cotswold continued to assign parking spaces through a deed subsequent to control of the board changing hands. Seven years later, in 2014, after two further conveyances that included parking spaces as limited common elements, the board sought to utilize its 3

authority under the by-laws to regulate parking at the condominium by charging rent for those spaces not used exclusively by any unit. Three unsold units and eight unassigned parking spaces remained. Months later, in January 2015, Cotswold deeded the three remaining unsold units to itself, assigning the remaining eight parking spaces as limited common elements to those three units. The Association then filed an action to quiet title, challenging the January 2015 conveyances made by Cotswold to itself. After the parties filed competing cross-motions for summary judgment, agreeing to the lack of factual issues, Judge Toskos granted summary judgment in favor of the Association. He concluded that while Cotswold retained the right to sell unsold units pursuant to the master deed, that right did not encompass the right to assign and designate parking spaces as limited common elements, because, pursuant to the by-laws, Cotswold retained no interest in the condominium's common elements, which belong proportionately and indivisibly to the unit owners. The Association, comprised of unit owners, owned the condominium's common elements including the parking spaces. The by-laws grant the Association's board the power to assign and control the condominium's parking spaces. 4

Judge Toskos concluded that the governing documents, consisting of the master deed and by-laws, read together, "vest the [b]oard with authority to control the actions of the [c]ondominium," including the power to "establish and enforce [r]ules and [r]egulations for parking by and the assignment of parking spaces to [u]nit [o]wners." The judge noted that because the Association did not elect to utilize this authority until 2014, the only conveyances at issue were the January 2015 conveyances made by Cotswold to itself. We review the trial court's decision de novo. Henry v. N.J. Dep't of Human Servs., 204 N.J. 320 (2010) (citing Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Manalapan Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)). In reviewing the trial court's granting of summary judgment, we apply the same standard used by the trial judge. Ibid. We must consider, when viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Cotswold, "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Nowell Amoroso, P.A., 189 N.J. 436 (2007) (quoting Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 536 (1995)). While the Association did not explicitly raise the issue of Cotswold's self-dealing, the self-dealing nature of the transactions is readily apparent. In conveying the unit deeds to 5

itself with specific parking spaces listed as limited common elements appurtenant to the unit, it is clear that Cotswold's sole purpose in conveying the unit deeds to itself was to assert control over the remaining unassigned parking spaces. As Judge Toskos concluded based on a review of the master deed and by-laws, that control appropriately rested with the Association, via the board, once control of the board passed to the Association in 2007. The parties represented that they tried but were unable to resolve this issue through mediation. Given the likelihood of further disagreements, we hope the parties will make every effort in the future not to resort to the expense and delay inherent in litigation. Affirmed. 6