07-4-4126 Hermanns v. Hermanns, N.J. Chancery Div. (Contillo, P.J. Ch.) (23 pp.) Plaintiff sought to amend his complaint to add claims in his action against his father over a family company. Defendant father was sole shareholder of family company. Plaintiff served as company president. Plaintiff alleged he quit teaching and began working at family company at father's request and that father repeatedly assured him that he had “sweat equity” in the company and a “secure job.” In 2016, father told plaintiff that he had Alzheimer's and both met with father's attorney to discuss transferring ownership of company to plaintiff. The process ended with plaintiff ousted from company. Plaintiff sought to supplement his allegations seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief by adding a claim for unjust enrichment and asserting he was promised lifetime employment and “sweat equity.” Plaintiff argued there was no prejudice to defendant since the new allegations arose from the same facts and events. Defendant argued that plaintiff's new claims were futile since his allegation of an oral agreement to inherit the business was not cognizable in New Jersey and plaintiff failed to plead the elements of a claim for unjust enrichment. The court allowed the amendment asserting a promise of lifetime employment and claiming unjust enrichment but denied the claim of a right to “succeed” to the business. [Filed Aug. 23, 2017]

07-5-4135 Conley v. Twp. of Ocean, Tax Ct. (Sundar, J.T.C.) (5 pp.) Township moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint as untimely. County Board of Taxation issued a judgment dated Feb. 28, 2017, affirming a property assessment and noting that the mailing date was March 14, 2017. All state offices were closed on March 14, 2017, due to a declaration of a state of emergency due to a winter storm. Plaintiff filed a complaint on May 2, 2017, which was one day beyond the 45-day deadline if the time limit was counted from March 14, 2017. The assistant tax administrator testified that the County Tax Board was open on March 14 and employees were present. However, the employees who reported to work that day were not the employees responsible for picking up the mail bin and delivering it to the post office. Thus, the court could not make a “reasonable inference” that the mail placed in the mail bin was delivered to the post office on that day and that the date given was the date on which the judgment was actually mailed. The start date for the 45-day appeal period could not be deemed to be March 14, 2017. [Filed Aug. 24, 2017]

11-2-4127 Levin v. Bd. of Tr. of Ocean Cnty. Bus. Ass'n, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (15 pp.) Plaintiffs appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant in plaintiffs' action to compel defendant to reinstate plaintiffs in defendant's private business association. Plaintiffs further appealed the denial of their motion to enforce litigant's rights. Plaintiffs retained the services of Adam Safeguard & Inquiry Systems, another member of defendant's association. When plaintiffs failed to pay, Adam Safeguard initiated defendant's grievance procedures, after having filed suit in court. Plaintiffs contended the grievance process should be delayed pending disposition of the lawsuit. Defendant subsequently terminated plaintiffs' membership, and plaintiffs filed the present action. After plaintiffs settled their dispute with Adam Safeguard, the trial court ordered the parties to engage in defendant's grievance process. However, the grievance committee recommended the termination of plaintiffs' membership. Thereafter, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted in defendant's favor. On a first appeal, the court ordered a new grievance procedure, finding plaintiffs were not afforded the right to confront the grievant or a hearing before defendant. The trial court ordered a new grievance committee, which also concluded that plaintiffs violated defendant's bylaws and recommended rejection of their reinstatement, to which defendant concurred. Defendant then filed the present summary judgment motion, to which plaintiffs cross-moved to enforce litigant's rights. The trial court granted defendant's motion and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion. On appeal, plaintiffs contended they were not provided a fair and impartial hearing because defendant had a conflict of interest in deciding whether plaintiffs should be reinstated, and further argued that Adam Safeguard's refusal to participate effectively ended the grievance. The court rejected both of plaintiffs' arguments, noting that defendant honored all of the procedural requirements set forth by the trial court for the hearing it ordered, and that the members of the second grievance committee were neither defendants nor members of the original grievance committee.