Narrow Amendment to Statute of Limitations May Have Wide Implications for Some Developers
In January 2022, Governor Phil Murphy signed into law Senate Bill 396, which extends the time for claims by planned real estate development associations against real estate developers, under certain circumstances. There may be some unintended consequences.
April 22, 2022 at 10:00 AM
8 minute read
For decades, the New Jersey Legislature has enacted and amended statutes of limitations applying to a wide variety of civil claims to balance competing noble protections of plaintiffs and defendants alike. On the one hand, the Legislature has sought to provide claimants adequate time to discover and explore potential claims, consider the weighty decision of filing a lawsuit and promote the resolution of claims on their merits. On the other hand, the Legislature has striven to discourage the untimely filing of claims to ensure that parties need not fear and account for the possibility of lawsuits long after certain conduct has occurred, and to further ensure that defendants are not prejudiced by the loss or unavailability of critical evidence, witnesses and recollections over time. In carefully establishing the time periods during which certain claims can be brought, the Legislature has consistently applied the statutes without regard to the identity of the plaintiff seeking to assert a claim. That is, whether the plaintiff is a Fortune 500 company, single-member LLC or lone individual, the statutes of limitation remain the same.
However, on Jan. 18, 2022, Governor Phil Murphy signed into law Senate Bill 396, which amends the New Jersey Statute of Limitations, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 et seq. (the "Amendment"), to extend the time for claims by planned real estate development associations, including condominium and cooperative associations (the "Associations"), against real estate developers under certain circumstances. The Amendment was a legislative reaction to the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Palisades at Fort Lee Condominium Association v. 100 Old Palisade, LLC, 230 N.J. 427 (2017), wherein the court held that the statute of limitations started to run when the Association learned of a defect, not when a change in control of the allegedly injured party occurred. In adopting the Amendment, the Legislature has now afforded preferential treatment for these types of organizations, and consequently has also likely created new, unintended questions that the courts will undoubtedly be called upon to untangle.
The two most cited statutes of limitations in New Jersey are the general statutes applicable to injuries to persons (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2) and to property (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1). Prior to 2022, the statute of limitations applicable to injuries to property simply provided that such actions "shall be commenced within six years next after the cause of any such action shall have accrued." The Legislature has now amended that straightforward and universally applicable statute to add a subsection providing that claims brought by Associations against a developer and any person "acting on behalf of or at the behest of" a developer "shall be tolled until an election is held and the owners comprise a majority of the board." The Amendment further states that it applies to any cause of action "that has not been subject to a final judgment dismissing the claim as of the effective date." The Legislature has thereby added a single subsection to one of the most universally applicable statutes of limitations to add a tolling element only to claims by Associations against developers and those acting at its behest.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Real Estate Consumer Protection Enhancement Act Brings Industry Change
9 minute readPersonal Liability Following a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure in New Jersey
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250