INC NEWS - Fw: News Articles - Twin Rivers 7-27-07 do you have a question about your HOA?

[Mike - Hotmail]

This posting is very relevant to HOA's (HomeOwners Associations) that were chartered when they were first developed but either had an absence of a homeowners association board or a lack of rules enforcement (i.e. assessments, architectural review, etc) as the years went on.

If you live in a "planned community" or "community of common interest" and you see a similarity with this case in New Jersey,   you might want to check out www.caionline.org for more information.

Please feel free to foward this posting to your community listserve or neighborhood email posting group.

There's even a link for members of a HOA to 'ask the experts'  at http://www.caionline.org/feature/expert.cfm


Michael Wm. Shiflett
Boardmember, CAI-NC


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jack M 
To: Frank Rathbun ; Prudence Bachmann ; Brainard, Marilyn ; Jerry Boswell ; Fred Mellenbruch ; Michael Shiflett ; Bob Gramzinski 
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Fw: News Articles - Twin Rivers 7-27-07



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Mariam Ozaltin 
To: 'Alan R. Kohn' ; 'Audrey D. Wisotsky, Esq.' ; 'Beth Dohm' ; 'Brian Kelley' ; 'Christine Li, Esq.' ; 'Curt Macysyn' ; 'Dave Ferullo' ; 'Donald J. Moskowitz' ; 'Eric Orlando' ; 'Fran McGovern, Esq.' ; 'Jack McGrath' ; 'Jim Magid' ; 'Jules C. Frankel, CPA, MBA' ; 'Karen J. Mesler' ; 'Kenneth R. Sauter, Esq.' ; 'Kisha Howard' ; 'Mary Faith Radcliffe' ; 'Michael Pesce, PCAM' ; 'Paul Leodori' ; 'Ron Perl, Esq.' ; 'Susan Gouger' ; 'Thomas C. Martin, Esq.' 
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 9:14 AM
Subject: News Articles - Twin Rivers 7-27-07




At Twin Rivers, status quo gets a thumbs up
Friday, July 27, 2007 

BY MARY JO PATTERSON

Star-Ledger Staff 

Gail and Stephen Tuckman have lived in Twin Rivers for 33 years and loved every minute of it. Well, nearly every minute. 

"A poor man's paradise," said Tuckman, sighing in a satisfied way as he lounged under a shady tree yesterday. The couple moved with their children to the private community in East Windsor from Brighton Beach in Brooklyn in 1974. 

The Tuckmans said they were very happy to learn yesterday the New Jersey Supreme Court had decided the Twin Rivers Homeowners Association had the right to set rules for the people who live in the sprawling development. 

"Good," Gail Tuckman said. "This group that challenged the rules are troublemakers. This is a wonderful place to live. There was never a rule that bothered me." 

Then she stopped. 

"Some of the rules did annoy us," she said. Turning to her husband, she said, "Remember, with the door?" -- referring to a rule, since relaxed, on what colors front doors could be painted. At the time, the shade she wanted was verboten. 

Her husband nodded. 

"Our shed also had the wrong kind of wood, but they grandfathered it in. The little things, they didn't really bother with, and I understood when we moved here that there would be rules." 

The court case decided yesterday arose from disputes between a handful of residents and the association's board over where political signs could be posted and residents' access to the community room and newsletter. 

Twin Rivers is a huge place, and many of the residents who were stopped by a reporter yesterday said they were not familiar with the long-simmering case. 

"I never heard any talk, and I've lived here all my life, since I was 1," said Deanna Mellon, 18, on her way to the pool. 

Alicia DeLorenzo recalled having heard something about "a problem with putting out lawn signs" but didn't know any details. Yesterday she and her fiancé, Andrew Feldman, were lugging boxes into a townhouse they had just bought. 

"I'm young, so it doesn't matter -- I really don't have any political opinions yet," said DeLorenzo, who is 24. "But I assume that now, becoming a homeowner, I will." 

Feldman stopped what he was doing to ponder the issue. "In a sense, yes, it limits freedoms, but it wouldn't change my mind about living here. We saw a home we liked. We chose to come here, but I could see where some people could have a problem with this. It's a murky subject." 

Sevella Cohen, at a pool with her niece and grandnephew, said there were times during her 25-year residency when one of the association's rules irked her. But, she said, she understood why the rules were enforced. 

"There are certain stupid things, but it was never a big deal," she said. "The only thing I really dislike is that they check out your house once a year and tell you what should be fixed. It's only right that you keep everything fixed, but some people don't have the money." 

At the library across Route 33, Tuesday Overton said she had no idea Twin Rivers enforced rules for homeowners. 

Overton, sitting with her mother and year-old daughter, seemed surprised. She has rented an apartment at Twin Rivers since February and considers it "a really nice community." 

"It seems funny to me, to worry about what a neighbor's door looks like, but I guess the idea is okay as long as the association is made up of people living in the community and there are enough of them to represent everybody," Overton said. "As long as it's something that's not glossed over, and that people understand when they buy." 

 

>

N.J. justices side with homeowner association
Ruling limiting residents' rights may have national implications 

Friday, July 27, 2007 

BY KATE COSCARELLI

Star-Ledger Staff 

New Jerseyans who live in private communities where associations set rules must accept some limit of their free-speech rights, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday in a landmark case that roiled through the state's legal system for years and could have national repercussions. 

In a unanimous decision that could affect as many as 1.2 million people who live in such communities in the state, the court said private developments are not the same as towns or even shopping malls, where the free-speech protections of the state constitution are paramount. 

As a result, the justices said, homeowners associations can impose restrictions on residents as long as the rules are "reasonable." 

The case stemmed from disputes at the 10,000-unit Twin Rivers development in East Windsor, Mercer County, between a handful of residents and the homeowners association's board over where political signs could be posted and other free-expression issues. 

Though it involved just one community, the case is expected to have an impact on New Jersey's estimated 5,800 association-governed residential developments. It is also being watched nationally because the issue that has been raised across the country. Nationwide, some 57 million Americans live in such communities. 

"We start from the proposition that all citizens of this state, including the residents of Twin Rivers, possess the constitutional right to free speech and assembly," Justice James Wallace wrote. "We acknowledge, however, that those rights are not absolute, as citizens may waive or otherwise curtail their rights. ... We conclude the association's policies, as set forth in its rules and regulations, do not violate our constitution." 

Barry Goodman, who represented the Twin Rivers Homeowners Association, said the ruling was a "strong statement" for private-property ownership and a validation for the majority of people who want reasonable rules in their development to ensure peace and harmony among neighbors. 

"This is one of the great foundations of our democracy, that you have the right to enter into private agreements with respect to your property. Obviously there are some limits," said Dennis Casale, an attorney for Community Associations Institute, an advocacy group that supported the association in the case. "It protects the majority of people who live in community associations. It means they can govern themselves without undue interference." 

Frank Askin, a Rutgers University law school professor who represented the homeowners, said the court was stepping away from a tradition of broadening protections for residents. 

"They're pulling back from their stance in taking the lead in extending rights under the state constitution," he said. 

Robert Diamond, a Virginia lawyer who helped write model legislation on condominium law, said the ruling will help shape the way homeowner associations around the country function and will determine how their regulations should be written. 

"It is a big deal," he said. "It affirms the associations' right to make decisions." 

VARIOUS MEANS OF EXPRESSION 

Twin Rivers is a sprawling development of apartments, condominiums, single-family houses and commercial buildings just off Interchange 8 of the New Jersey Turnpike. In 2000, a group of residents calling themselves the Committee for a Better Twin Rivers sued the development's homeowners association. 

Specifically, they objected to restrictions on the display of political signs and fees for the use of the community room, and they said their views were not given equal play in the community newsletter. 

A judge in Mercer County rejected the committee's claims and sided with the Twin Rivers Homeowners Association, noting the residents had agreed to the conditions when they purchased their homes. 

But in February 2006, an appeals court overturned the decision, saying those living in the community were still protected by the state Constitution. The appellate ruling was the first of its kind in the country. 

In yesterday's ruling, which overturned the appellate decision, the high court said Twin Rivers resembles a town in some ways, in that the residents have their own ballfields, recycling, garbage pick-up, snow removal and pools. But, the court said, the development is not a government entity. 

Twin Rivers residents send their children to East Windsor schools. The township also provides emergency services and collects taxes from the development. 

The court also said Twin Rivers is different from places like private universities and shopping malls, which invite the public onto their properties. 

Most significant, the court found, the association's rules were not unreasonable. The justices said residents have other ways to express themselves, such as talking to each other or distributing their own newsletter. 

"The minor restrictions on expressional activities are not unreasonable or oppressive," Wallace wrote. "The association's policies do not violate the free speech and right of assembly of the New Jersey Constitution." 

The court refused to rule out the possibility that residents could successfully sue an association that "unreasonably infringes their free speech rights." 

Advocates for the homeowners said that was reason for hope. 

"The New Jersey Supreme Court is the first state high court to recognize that a state constitution's free speech provisions protect homeowners against unreasonable restrictions on their freedom of communication," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, which represented the homeowners who sued. 

At Twin Rivers yesterday, Haim Bar-Akiva, one of the residents who sued, said the ruling will allow the "'tyrannical processes" of some association boards to continue. 

Scott Pohl, president of the homeowners association, said was thrilled the legal fight was finally over and there are no plans to revise any of the association's rules. 

"It is a validation for the community," Pohl said. "Life at Twin Rivers will remain unchanged." 

Top court: Home covenants can limit speech
East Windsor homeowners lose fight against association.




By ANGELA DELLI SANTI 
The Associated Press 

TRENTON -- Homeowners forfeit certain freedoms of speech -- such as the right to post political signs on their front lawns -- when they live in a community whose homeowners' association bans such expression, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday. 

The high court ruled that homeowners' association policies are not at odds with the state constitution's guarantee of free speech. 

The case involved residents of the Twin Rivers master planned development in East Windsor who objected to some regulations set by their homeowners' association. About 10,000 people live in the high-density, Central Jersey community of apartments, condos, single-family houses and commercial buildings. 

The residents who sued objected to restrictions on the display of political signs, being charged high fees to use the association's community room, and the refusal by the association to allow dissenters' views in the development's newspaper. 

The ruling could affect the more than 1 million New Jersey residents, or nearly 40 percent of all private homeowners, who live in planned communities and are under community association rules. Some 57 million Americans live in such communities. 

"This decision will have an impact within New Jersey and across the country," said Ronald L. Perl, President of the Community Associations Institute, a national nonprofit organization that advises community associations. 

Lawyers for the residents said the New Jersey Supreme Court was the highest court in the United States to ever hear arguments challenging the authority of community associations. 

Perl said lawyers, homeowners' groups and academics watched the case closely to see if the New Jersey Supreme Court -- widely considered a liberal protector of individual rights -- would extend free-speech protections to private property. 

It did not. 

In a unanimous ruling, the high court said community associations can restrict the conduct of their residents so long as the rules are reasonable. 

While Perl saw Thursday's ruling as a victory for community groups, the homeowners who sued were clearly disappointed. 

"The court's ruling limits, for more than 1 million New Jerseyans, democratic rights that all Americans expect," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, which represented the homeowners who sued. 

However, Jacobs said the ACLU was pleased that the court imposed a reasonableness standard on association restrictions. 

"While limiting political signs to one in each window of a home was not unconstitutional, a complete ban on signs within each residence likely would be," she said. 

Initially, a state judge backed the homeowners' association, ruling that those who bought homes in Twin Rivers knew the rules and had to abide by them. A three-judge appeals panel reversed the ruling in 2006, saying people there are still protected by the state constitution. 

The Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated the trial court's decision. 

 

 

Mariam Ozaltin

Research Associate/Political Outreach Coordinator

Kaufman Zita Group, LLC.  (KZG)

100 Overlook Center, Second Floor

Princeton, NJ 08540

(ph) 609-395-8889 (fax) 609-395-8188

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20070727/2dfe3958/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1790 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20070727/2dfe3958/attachment-0001.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1110 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20070727/2dfe3958/attachment-0001.jpeg