To paraphrase Alexis DeTocqueville, the concentration of power, and the subjugation of individuals will only increase amongst democratic societies in the same proportion as people remain ignorant of government and corporate decisions, and fail to actively question or protest actions that negatively impact their lives and the communities in which they live. But how can communities ensure that government officials and corporations, including business and civic and other nonprofit organizations, conduct their operations in a manner that serves not only the interests of their members, owners or other identifiable stakeholders, but also the general public affected by their actions? By what standards should their decisions and actions be judged and otherwise evaluated?
There is little doubt that “accountability” can, in theory, prevent corruption in government as well as business and civil society, but it is less certain how to get particular government agencies or corporations to answer for specific actions to people with fewer resources and political influence, even where clear legal standards exist.
NJ Appleseed represents those negatively affected by specific government or corporate action that violates statutory and/or regulatory norms and requirements. We participate, on behalf of defined community interests, in administrative proceedings, court disputes and other public forums. Our principal goals and focus are:
- to represent individuals and groups whose rights to public participation, petition of the government and free speech are threatened, especially in the context of the development process;
- to represent community organizations seeking to enforce statutory or regulatory standards, especially in the areas of environmental harmful land use, discrimination, and government spending;
- to represent unincorporated organizations of residents who live in common interest communities, including condominiums and cooperatives, in seeking to ensure democratic governance of their communities; and
- to enhance state enforcement of consumer financial protections.
The Prerogative Writ Project
NJ Appleseed represents community organizations in court actions, when that is the only mechanism for forcing government officials to do what the law requires. Over the years, we have assisted a number of organizations in their efforts to hold the following government entities accountable to the public whose interests they serve:
The Pinelands Commission–South Jersey Pipeline
NJ Appleseed represents the NJ Sierra Club and Environment NJ in their efforts to reverse the Pineland Commission’s flawed decision-making in approving construction by South Jersey Gas Company of a natural gas pipeline through the Pinelands.
In the Matter of the Petition of S.J. Gas Company for a Consistency Determination for Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline, ____ N.J. Super. ____(App. Div. Nov. 7, 2016).
In the Matter of NJ Pinelands Commission Resolution PC-4-16-42 and PC4-17-03, A-2015-16, A-3055-16; A-3010-16 (pending).
The Pinelands Commission–Tuckahoe Turf Farms
We also represent the Pinelands Preservation Alliance and NJ Conservation Foundation in a challenge to decision-making by the Pinelands Commission that allowed the owner of the Tuckahoe Turf Farm, located in the Pinelands Protection Area, to use his property for soccer tournaments that draw hundreds of people. We objected that such use was not consistent with the Comprehensive Management Plan that governs use of the Pinelands nor with conservation restrictions for which the owner had been paid under the Pinelands Development Credit Program and the State Agriculture Retention and Development Program. The Appellate Division, however, affirmed the Commission’s actions in a July 12, 2018 opinion. Among other reasons, it found the challenge moot as a result of legislation in 2016 that amended the Pinelands Preservation Act to allow soccer as a low-intensity recreational use on active farms located within the Pinelands Protection Area. We filed a petition for certification asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to review that ruling on the ground that the Commission’s and Appellate Division’s failure to enforce the conservation restrictions undermines the ability to rely on protections on which billions of dollars of public money has been spent. The Court denied review on December 17, 2018.
In re Pinelands Commission’s Consistency Determination Approving Tuckahoe Turf Farm Application No. 1984-0389.009, A-5025-14, A-3417-15, A-3670-16.
Appellate Brief, Appendix I and Appendix II, Reply Brief, and Certification by Carleton Montgomery of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance.
NJ Department of Environmental Protection–Green Acres
In 2015, we represented the Pinelands Preservation Alliance and NJ Conservation Foundation in seeking reversal of a decision by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The DEP had determined in 2014 that a 1.43-acre area consisting of a municipal ball field, playground and adjacent wooded area in Upper Township did not constitute unfunded parkland under Green Acres rules because it was not listed on the Recreational and Open Space Inventory (ROSI) provided by the town to the DEP in order to obtain Green Acres funding. Thus, the sale or transfer of the property would not trigger DEP rules against diversion. The DEP reaffirmed that determination in 2015 but NJ Appleseed subsequently proved that the ROSI relied on by the DEP incorrectly omitted the property. As a result, the DEP reversed its initial determination in 2017 and the ROSI was amended. The request for the determination had come from South Jersey Gas Company, which wanted to use the land in question for a pipeline it is trying to build through the Pinelands but it is now barred from using that property.
In the Matter of Township of Upper, County of Cape May, Block 350, Lot 12, Recreation and Open Space Inventory Final Determination, A-1787-15 (remanded and reversed).
We represent the Pinelands Preservation Alliance and NJ Conservation Foundation in a appeal from a DEP decision that granted a partial release of conservation restrictions on preserved parkland in Stafford Township. We won a remand, with the DEP conceding that it failed to require any compensatory land in exchange for the diverted parkland and stating that it would review its prior erroneous assumption that the parkland was not a habitat for threatened or endangered species. We unsuccessfully appealed the DEP’s modified decision on the grounds that it violated its own rules and accepted replacement property that did not adequately compensate for the diversion.
In the Matter of the Certificate of the Department of Environmental Protection Granting Partial Release of Conservation Restrictions, A-2316-10 (App. Div. July 31, 2017).
Post-Remand Brief and Reply Brief.
NJ Department of Community Affairs and Private Developer
We filed an action on behalf of a host of affordable housing organizations against Applied Housing Management Company and the NJ Department of Community Affairs, alleging violation of laws governing limited dividend corporations and the charitable trust doctrine. The action arose when Applied pre-paid its Section 8 mortgage loans on its Hoboken apartment buildings, and asked the state to remove its affordable housing obligations. The trial court declined jurisdiction, and the matter was settled in 2001 under the auspices of the appellate court. Applied agreed that 40% of its apartments would remain affordable.
Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey v. Applied Housing Management Co., Inc., HUD-C-141-00, A-4832-00.
U.S. Department of Education and For-Profit Schools
We filed an Amicus Brief with the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of NJ Appleseed and NJ Citizen Action in support of plaintiffs in a False Claims Act or qui tam suit against Eastwick College and Hohokus Schools, both for-profit entities. The plaintiffs alleged that the schools improperly drew against federal financial aid after students withdrew and through improper and excessive book and lab fees and that they falsely certified compliance with certain federal requirements, in addition to claims of fraud in recruiting and abuses in grading. A federal district judge in NJ dismissed the case for failure to state a claim and also refused to allow the filing of a supplemental amended complaint. The Third Circuit affirmed.
U.S. ex rel. Whatley v. Eastwick College, 657 F. App’x 89 (3d Cir. 2016).
Motion to File Amicus Brief.
NJ Appleseed successfully challenged the state’s impoundment of funds from the Affordable Housing Fund prior to the end of the fiscal year. The case was filed in Mercer County Chancery Division in 1994 with a request for a temporary restraining order. Shortly after, Judge Philip Carchman ruled the funds had been wrongfully impounded and ordered them released to the Affordable Housing Fund.
Non-Profit Affordable Housing Network of New Jersey v. Whitman, (MER-Ch., June 30, 1994).
NJ State Police
NJ Appleseed conducted approximately 8-years of litigation on behalf of 13 black state troopers who spoke out about racial profiling and employment discrimination. We initially filed an EEOC complaint in 1993 and a discrimination complaint was filed in state court in 1995, with the assistance of pro bono counsel, Lowenstein Sandler. Separate litigation was brought on behalf of one of those troopers, Glen Johnson, who was wrongfully terminated. While both matters were pending, we won a motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a State Police regulation requiring prior approval for dissemination of NJSP information and documents to the public because it restrained troopers’ speech in violation of the First Amendment. The discrimination case was ultimately settled with the assistance of Johnny Cochran, Barry Scheck, and Peter Neufeld in 2003. Appleseed’s “Journey for Justice” with the 13 troopers is detailed in Renée Steinhagen’s Testimony before the State Advisory Committee on Police Standards, on November 21, 2006.
Davis v. NJ State Police, (N.J. Super. 1999).
NJ Appleseed appealed and secured reversal of an order denying pro hac vice admission of its co-counsel, David Rose, in a suit challenging the NJ State Police admission test. Rose had been a lead attorney with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in the 1970s when the DOJ secured a consent decree regarding discriminatory hiring by the NJ State Police, events which had led to the development of the police exam at issue in the case. The trial judge believed that created an appearance of impropriety. The appeals court disagreed, saying the nine-year hiatus between Rose’s retirement from the DOJ and the filing of the pro hac vice application, a period during which he had represented the plaintiff NAACP on a regular basis, mitigated any concern that he was taking advantage of information obtained as a government attorney.
NAACP v. State of New Jersey, A-3357-97 (App. Div. 1998).
Appeal Brief on Pro Hac Vice Admission.
Newark Watershed Community Development Corporation (NWCDC)
Members of the Newark Water Group, represented by NJ Appleseed, filed a counterclaim against the Mayor and the NWCDC, after they sued the petitioners, who had utilized the Initiative and Referendum process to block privatization of the City’s water supply. Also sued was the City Council, which had adopted the petition. The counterclaim sought dissolution of the NWCDC, the quasi-public entity that maintained the city’s watershed property and operated the treatment plant, with its functions reinstated to the Newark Department of Water. The case was settled, and the NWCDC was dissolved.
This matter is also described on the Empowering Voters page under the Facilitating Local Initiative and Referendum Project.
In re Initiated Petition regarding a Proposed Save Our Water Ordinance, Docket No. ESX-L-6649- 12; A-4258-13 (Jan. 22, 2015).
West New York
We filed an action in lieu of prerogative writ over actions taken by the Town of West New York to deny its citizens the right to elect, in a school board election, four new members of the West New York Board of Education. The matter was dismissed.
Francisco A. Ferreiro and West New York Concerned Residents v. Ricciel, Docket No. HUD-L-1919-14.
Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.
Governor and Legislature
Two Memoranda to Housing and Community Development Network and Fair Share Housing Center regarding a potential challenge to (1) Governor Christie’s taking funds from Neighborhood Preservation Non-lapsing Revolving Fund and (2) Legislature’s attempt to override “poison pill” provision in affordable housing law.
February 21, 2011 Memorandum.
February 28, 2011 Memorandum.
Borough of Freehold
In 2003, NJ Appleseed, together with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, filed a class action alleging bias by the Borough for filing complaints for overcrowding and criminal trespass against persons of Hispanic origin, particularly day laborers gathered in public places to solicit work, as well as for unreasonable searches and discriminatory enforcement of the housing code. A consent decree secured through mediation was issued by the federal district court in 2007.
El Comité de Trabajadores por el Progreso y Bienestar Social v. Freehold Borough, No. 03-cv-6180.
November 13, 2006 Press Release Announcing Settlement.
City of Hoboken
People for Open Government went into court to enforce the anti-Pay-to Play ordinance it had initiated through petition and the ballot. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of standing, but NJ Appleseed took on the appeal, secured an Appellate Division decision reversing that decision and confirming New Jersey’s liberal standard with respect to actions brought by citizens and community-based organizations.
People for Open Government v. Roberts, 397 N.J. Super. 502 (2008).
We sought to compel the Attorney General to close the Hudson County District SPCA because of gross health violations. We were ultimately successful, but withdrew from the action in August 2010 when our client organization dissolved.
Hudson Animal Advocates and Jersey City Div. of Health v. Hudson County District SPCA, Docket No. HUD-C-59-08.
The Anti-SLAPP Project
NJ Appleseed has represented and continues to represent those who have been the targets of Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (“SLAPPs”) and has been an active proponent of anti-SLAPP legislation. SLAPPs are legal actions brought by business and corporate interests against ordinary citizens for exercising their constitutional right to speak out and petition the government on matters of public concern. Lawsuits are initiated or counterclaims are filed against opponents in the community in order to intimidate and silence them by burdening them with the financial and emotional expense of a legal defense until they retreat or give up their criticism. SLAPPs attempt to convert public issues into private tort claims, and the economic consequences and restrictive conditions that typically flow from permit or zoning proceedings are mischaracterized as private economic damages.
In addition to working with other organizations to promote anti-SLAPP legislation in New Jersey, NJ Appleseed has represented the following groups and individuals:
Pipeline Opponents–Pinelands Pipeline Litigation
In March 2017, Jane Jannarone, a member of the Pinelands Commission, sued 14 activists who posted critical remarks on her real estate business Facebook page about her and her vote approving the South Jersey Gas pipeline through the Pinelands. The remarks were disparaging and angry but protected under the First Amendment. NJ Appleseed, which already represented pipeline opponents the Sierra Club and the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, took on the defense of the activists and in October 2017, secured a stipulation of dismissal.
Jannarone v. Mendel, Docket No. CUM-L-206-17.
Attorney for Rail-to-Trail Activists–Harismus Embankment Litigation
NJ Appleseed defended Seattle attorney Charles Montange in a 2011 state court suit brought by a developer who was challenging Montange’s simultaneous representation of three plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit that sought to nullify the sale of the Harsimus Embankment in Jersey City to the developer. The Embankment is an elevated, stone-sided and long-abandoned railway bed that runs through the City’s downtown and the City, urged on by the Embankment Preservation Coalition, a local nonprofit advocacy group, sought to acquire the property for use as a public park. Montange represented the City, the Coalition and the Conservancy in the federal case, then pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The state court dismissed allegations that Montange had a conflict of interest and that the City was improperly and unconstitutionally subsidizing the Coalition and the Conservancy by paying Montange’s legal fees. Nevertheless, the judge refused to sanction the developer and its attorney despite clear evidence of malice and the SLAPP nature of the state suit.
212 Marin Blvd., LLC v. Montange, Docket No. HUD-L-2196-11, aff’d, A-583-10 (2012).
Milltown Community Preservationist Group–John C. Evans Project
In 2006, Valley National Bank sought approval from Milltown for a project to build a new bank. The plan entailed destroying the Forney House, an historic home built in the 1860s by the father of the town’s first mayor and operated as a medical-dental office since about 1907. A community group called the John C. Evans Project, after a prior owner of the house, opposed the application and after, it was granted, sued to overturn the approval. The bank counterclaimed for interference with contract, among other claims, and pursued the case , even after the Forney House was razed in 2009 and the new bank built. Following dismissal of the case in 2010, the group sought fees and costs as frivolous litigation sanctions against the bank on the basis that the counterclaim was a SLAPP suit. Finding no bad faith by the bank, the court denied the request. On appeal, NJ Appleseed filed an Amicus Brief supporting sanctions but the Appellate Division affirmed.
John C. Evans Project, Inc. vs. Valley National Bancorp, A-4850-09 (2010).
Union City Zoning Activist
NJ Appleseed represented Larry Price of Union City who for years has been trying to rein in development in his hometown by repeatedly filing prerogative writ actions that challenge approvals granted by the local board of zoning adjustment. A frustrated developer unsuccessfully sued Price, accusing him of extortion. Not only was the case dismissed, but we secured an Appellate Division decision in 2009 that awarded Price attorneys’ fees and costs because the lawsuit against him was acknowledged to be a SLAPP suit.
Maximus Real Estate Fund, LLC et al. v. Marotta and Price, A-5501-07 (App. Div. Aug. 13, 2009).
Dust was flying and settling near a worksite in Hoboken where Stevens Institute of Technology was blasting into the Palisades Cliffs in order to build a parking garage in 2002. Ronald Hine and Aaron Lewit, both with the Fund for a Better Waterfront, a Hoboken nonprofit that advocates for parkland along the Hudson River, investigated and discovered that the dust particles included naturally occurring asbestos. They complained to the Hoboken and Hudson County Health Departments, wrote letters to the editor and tried to get Stevens to take the necessary precautions to protect the workers on the site as well as the public. Their pleas were met by denials and a lawsuit accusing them of defamation. NJ Appleseed, together with the Columbia University Environmental Law Clinic, represented the Fund and got the action dismissed on summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed on the ground that, with discovery not yet complete, summary dismissal was premature. After the NJ Supreme Court denied review, the matter was remanded and ultimately settled, with Stevens never admitting that it had filed a SLAPP suit.
Stevens Inst. of Technology v. Hine, A-3574-04 (July 31, 2007); Supreme Ct. Docket No. 61617 (2007).
In October 2009, a Criminal Trespass and Theft complaint, S-2209-000215-1715, was filed against Joseph Hannagan, a member of the Quinton Planning Board who had been appointed one month earlier by the Mayor as the Township Mining Inspector. Hannagan was charged with Trespass and Theft for taking a soil sample during a mine inspection, over the objections of the mining company president. NJ Appleseed intervened on behalf of Hannagan, and the criminal complaint was dismissed.
Memorandum of Law.
Community Activists–Upper Greenwood Lake
NJ Appleseed represented several residents of Upper Greenwood Lake, a private lake community in West Milford, who faced Criminal Trespass charges and other forms of retaliation after they organized to protest an increase in assessments and lack of privileges on the Lake. The Criminal Trespass complaint was dismissed against the individual who was a resident and State employee and the retaliation count filed under the New Jersey Constitution was settled.
The Common Interest Association Democracy Project
More than one million New Jerseyans live in common-interest communities—typically, clusters of townhouses, condominiums, cooperatives and other planned unit developments. Residents live under the governance of community associations—mini private governments that collect dues/fees/assessments from owners and control such common facilities as parks and parking and often set rules for many aspects of the community, including the appearance and upkeep of individual homes.
NJ Appleseed has worked over the years to ensure that the principles of democratic governance that apply to municipal action and decision-making do not stop at the gates of common-interest associations. Homeowners in these communities should enjoy the same transparency and access to association information that they are entitled to as residents of a municipality. The by-laws and rules of such associations should be designed to encourage members to attend board meetings and participate in the affairs of the community to the extent they are personally inclined to do so. NJ Appleseed helps those living in common-interest communities ensure that their boards act in an open and transparent manner, with the full participation of residents in the election of such boards and in the operation of their associations.
In addition to successfully petitioning the state to adopt guidelines governing financial disclosure and elections in common-interest associations, we have represented residents fighting for democratic governance in the following communities:
Sunrise Bay at Galloway (Galloway)
In early May 2019, we wrote to the President of the Board of the Sunrise Bay at Galloway Homeowners Association on behalf of Sunrise Homeowners United, a group of owners formed to seek improved governance of their homeowner association, with an emphasis on securing board meetings that are open to owners, fuller financial disclosure and fairer board elections that permit greater owner participation. The letter asks for amendments to the by-laws to achieve those purposes and comply with the Property Real Estate Development and Full Disclosure Act (PREDFDA), a state law.
Concordia (Monroe Township)
NJ Appleseed represents Our Concordia, a group of homeowners who live in the Concordia adult community located in Monroe Township, which consists of 1,757 homes on 440 acres, with about 2900 residents. Our Concordia plans to run to several candidates for the Concordia Homeowners Association Board of Trustees in the upcoming election and is concerned about its ability to campaign in light of rules that ban campaigning or soliciting either at the Clubhouse or by going door to door. Other problematic restrictions prohibit window signs and the placement of political flyers on the Clubhouse bulletin board and require prior management approval to distribute flyers and other information via residential news delivery receptacles. We sent a letter to the homeowners’ association on April 26, 2019, informing it that the restrictions unconstitutionally burden residents’ expressional rights and asking that it refrain from enforcing them so that Our Concordia can leaflet, go door to door, talk to fellow residents on common property and place one sign in the window of each home and car. If the board does not agree to forebear, Our Concordia threatened to seek a temporary restraining order and if it prevails, to also seek legal fees.
Radburn (Fair Lawn)
NJ Appleseed is working with Radburn United, a large group of homeowners in Radburn, a private, unincorporated association within Fair Lawn that was founded in 1929 as one of the first planned communities in the United States. We are seeking to ensure that the Radburn Association amends its by-laws to be consistent with a state law known as PREDFDA (Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act, which is enforced by the NJ Department of Community Affairs, or DCA). The law was amended in 2017 to strengthen voting rights for those living in planned communities subject to governance by community associations and we also seek to ensure that the Radburn Association holds its next election in accordance with the amended law. Right before the May 2017 vote to amend PREDFDA, the Radburn Association board (which has since been reconstituted) adopted new by-laws to preserve its power by slowing the transition to a more democratically elected board and tried to hand 165 votes to a developer building a new condominium complex on property previously owned by the Association. In March 2018, in response to a complaint filed by NJ Appleseed on behalf of Radburn United, the DCA invalidated the new by-laws and placed a hold on the 165 developer votes until approved by either a court or the DCA.
In 2006, NJ Appleseed filed a complaint on behalf of a group of Radburn homeowners who were trying to ensure that the Association’s elections were held pursuant to constitutional principles regarding the right of all residents to nominate and elect their Board. In the trial court, the group got a SLAPP-like counterclaim dismissed against one of the plaintiffs who had served as the President of the Radburn Citizens Association and had filed a complaint with the DCA and secured a determination that PREDFDA, enacted subsequent to the creation of Radburn, applied retroactively to it, including its requirements regarding financial disclosure. The Appellate Division in 2010 affirmed the trial court’s decision but dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim that Radburn acted unlawfully in not allowing all owners the right to nominate and vote for the entire Radburn Board.
Moore v. Radburn Association, Docket No. BER-C-394-06, A-4284-07 (unpublished opinion in 2009).
Fox Chase II (Tinton Falls)
Since its inception, 40% of the units at the Fox Chase II condominiums in Tinton Falls were designated as affordable units. Despite that, no owner of an affordable unit owner ever served for any meaningful period of time on the Board of the Association nor ad the Board ever held public meetings. A group of affordable unit owners represented by NJ Appleseed sued in 2015, over the imposition of a special assessment that was not fairly apportioned among owners based on their percentage of ownership in the common property. NJ Appleseed, with Legal Services of NJ, was able to secure an order compelling the election of all five members of the Board. As a result, two affordable unit owners were elected to the five-member Board and are working to amend the Association’s by-laws so that they are consistent with the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act (PREDFDA), including the requirement to have open board meetings. The Court also required the “new” Board to hold a new vote on the special assessment after a properly noticed board meeting.
Fox Chase Affordable Unit Owners v. Fox Chase II Condominium Assn., Inc., Docket No. MON-L-3479-15 (Order and Decision, Oct. 2017).
Carlton Towers (City of Passaic)
Carlton Towers is a high-rise 228-unit condominium in the City of Passaic. Starting with a complaint by a Board member who refused to sign an overly broad confidentiality agreement, we worked with a group of owners, including that member, to force a Board election to ensure greater transparency and responsiveness to the owners as a whole.
Concerned Residents for a Better Carlton Towers, v. Carlton Tower Condominium Assn., Docket No. PAS-C-0086-15.
Wood-Duck Pond Neighborhood (Bedminster)
NJ Appleseed filed an appeal on behalf of pro se defendant Karl Kovac, who lived in the Wood–Duck Pond Neighborhood in Bedminster. The Neighborhood Association had sued him to compel him to replace a pre-existing nonconforming door and then tried to get him to pay more than $45,000 in legal fees. The matter was settled successfully in 2015, since the Association by-laws did not authorize it to collect legal fees under such circumstances.
Wood-Duck Pond Neighborhood Assoc., Inc. v. Kovac, Docket No. A-3130-14.
Alexandria at Hillsborough Condominiums (Hillsborough)
We filed a Complaint on behalf of a group of owners who sought to hold the Alexandria at Hillsborough Condominium Association accountable with respect to financial disclosure, elections, and open board meetings. A court-supervised election was held pursuant to a Consent Order, and a new board was elected and a new manager retained.
Concerned Owners of Alexandria Assoc. v. Alexandria at Hillsborough Condominium Association, Docket No. SOM-C-12038-13 (Consent Order Oct. 13, 2013).
LeisureTowne (Southampton Township)
NJ Appleseed assisted a former board member and other owners of LesisureTowne, an active adult community in Southampton, in their efforts to prevent a new Board Chair and lawyer from changing the Restrictive Covenants to redefine who was permitted to vote in elections.
NJ Appleseed August 27, 2012 Letter to Board.
Flyer distributed to LeisureTowne Homeowners.
Common-Interest Homeowners Coalition
We provide legal assistance to the Common-Interest Homeowners Coalition, a non-profit formed in 1997 to address community living issues in New Jersey after a legislative task force found “poor governance and unfair operations” by common interest residential associations. Its stated mission is “to serve as the independent voice for homeowners in New Jersey residential community associations, to promote and strengthen democratic governance, and to advance the general welfare of homeowners.”
We have prepared and provided them with two memoranda written by Kevin Finckenauer, a pro bono intern who is a student at Rutgers University Law School in Newark:
1. Know Your Rights: an Overview of Common Elements and Limited Common Elements
2. Condominium Liens
“Homeowner Associations: Problems and Solutions,” for publication in the Rutgers Journal of Law and Public Policy, of Rutgers University School of Law at Camden (2007).
Consumer Financial Justice Project
The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, or CFPB, is a federal consumer protection agency created pursuant to the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in response to the financial industry abuses that caused the 2007-2008 financial crisis. It has been doing its job so well—cracking down on abuses in the mortgage, credit card and student loan industries—that business interests have relentlessly attempted to abolish and undermine it.
Consequently, NJ Appleseed has decided to participate, along with other national and state advocacy organizations, in the national effort to defend the CFPB against attempts to weaken its enforcement, supervisory and rule-making authority over financial lending institutions.
To that end, in September 2018, along with six other members of the Appleseed network, we signed onto an Amicus Brief filed by the national Appleseed Foundation in CFPB v. All-American Check Cashing, an interlocutory appeal pending before the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Our brief urges affirmance of a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi that upheld the constitutionality of the CFPB. The defendants in the case, who were sued by the CFPB over alleged payday lending abuses, attacked the the agency as unconstitutional in its structure because it is headed by a single director removable only for cause.
On June 28, 2019, NJ Appleseed joined with the Appleseed Foundation and Appleseed centers in five other states to comment on proposed changes to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Remittance Rule, codified at 12 CFR Part 1005. The Rule, adopted by the CFPB in 2010, under the statutory authority of the Dodd Frank Act, imposes requirements on companies that send international money transfers, or remittance transfers, on behalf of consumers. The Rule requires them to disclose the exact exchange rate, the amount of certain fees, and the amount expected to be delivered to the recipient. The CFPB has proposed raising the threshold for coverage by the rule from the current 101 or more transfers per year needed to qualify as a “remittance transfer provider.” The other change concerns an exception from disclosure requirements for banks, which has been in place since the rule was adopted and is slated to expire in 2020. Appleseed expressed the views that there is insufficient evidence to raise the 101-remittances-per-year threshold and that there no longer appeared to be a need to except banks from the disclosures. To the extent that banks might consider terminating their remittance services in the face of newly applicable disclosure requirements, Appleseed suggested they partner with larger banking organizations or nonbank money transmitters to act as service providers to the withdrawing banks’ customers.
It has also become apparent that the threat to the CFPB requires state Attorneys General and Commissioners of Banking to step up to the plate to protect consumers. Although New Jersey has a strong consumer fraud statute, there is little doubt that the Division of Consumer Affairs within the Office of the Attorney General is very weak, with minimal resources and scant history of enforcement. Accordingly, NJ Appleseed is exploring with NJ Citizen Action—which is already holding debt forums on financial industry abuses—the establishment of a Financial Justice Campaign that will focus on enhancing the state’s capacity to protect consumers in the following areas: educational loans and the servicing of those loans; fraudulent or deceptive practices of for-profit schools; medical debt; and pay-day loans and other predatory lending practices. We welcome the thoughts of members of the public on whether and how we should proceed with this effort.