20-2-4292 L.C. v. M.A.J., N.J. Super. App. Div. (Fisher, P.J.A.D.) (8 pp.) On the day of the final hearing, defendant filed an in limine motion that sought dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, arguing the alleged facts suggested only parenting differences and not domestic violence. The trial judge considered and granted the motion without taking testimony or providing plaintiff a full and fair opportunity to meaningfully respond. In condemning the filing of in limine motions that seek disposition of an action, particularly in domestic violence actions, and in finding the motion's rapid consideration and disposition–deprived plaintiff of due process, the court reversed and remanded for a final hearing. (Approved for Publication)

34-1-4252 The Palisades at Fort Lee Condominium Association, Inc. v. 100 Old Palisades, LLC, N.J. Sup. Ct. (Albin, J.) (36 pp.) A construction-defect cause of action accrues at the time that the building's original or subsequent owners first knew or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the basis for a claim. From that point, the plaintiff has six years to file a claim. A subsequent owner stands in no better position than a prior owner in calculating the limitations period. If a prior owner knew or reasonably should have known of a basis for a construction-defect action, the limitations period began at that point. Here, the Court cannot determine when the accrual clock commenced for each defendant based on the record before it and accordingly remands to the trial court.

14-8-4266 U.S. v. Poulson, 3rd Cir. (Rendell, J.) (24 pp.) Defendant appealed from two aspects of his judgment of sentence, arguing that the district court erred in calculating the number of victims who suffered a “substantial financial hardship,” and in imposing a five-year occupational restriction as part of his supervised release. Defendant was convicted after pleading guilty to one count of mail fraud, stemming from his participation in a scheme to trick homeowners facing foreclosure to sell him their homes, then defrauding investors in those distressed properties in a Ponzi scheme. The district court concluded that defendant's fraud totaled over $2.7 million, resulted in “substantial financial hardship” to more than 25 victims. The district court sentenced defendant to 70 months' imprisonment followed by three years' supervised release with a condition prohibiting defendant from working in the real estate industry for five years. The court first ruled that the district court properly exercised its discretion in determining the number of victims who suffered a “substantial financial hardship” under §2B1.1 of the sentencing guidelines. The court noted that a whether a victim suffered a substantial financial hardship would depend of the size of the loss relative to the victim's financial status and on the permanency of the loss; the court held there were no specific numbers demarcating a substantial hardship. However, the court concurred with defendant that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a five-year term barring defendant from working in the real estate industry as a condition of his three-year supervised release. The court noted that a three-year supervised release was the statutory maximum that could be imposed on defendant, and ruled that an occupation restriction as a condition of the supervised release could not exceed its term. Accordingly, the court remanded to correct the sentence to reflect the statutory maximums. (Precedential) [Filed Sep. 14, 2017]