CONSUMER PROTECTION
09-2-0569 Belmont Condominium Association Inc. v. Geibel, App. Div. (Parrillo, P.J.A.D.) (68 pp.) In this action by a condominium association for negligent construction and violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), we reject the builder/developer’s claim that damages relating to defects in common elements and to misrepresentations in initial offering materials should be allocated so that the association can only collect on behalf of a certain percentage of the unit owners and not those who purchase after the defects become known. In other words, the association has standing to aggregate ascertainable losses of members who did not purchase their units from the developer and, accordingly, may recover all the damages necessary to repair or correct the defects to the common elements and to which it may be statutorily entitled under the CFA. We decline to reduce or apportion the recoverable damages (including the CFA award) for subsequent unit purchasers. We also hold, based on our reading of the condominium’s master deed in conjunction with the New Jersey Condominium Act, that the windows for which the association claims damages are not part of the “common elements” of the condominium but rather part of the individual units, and therefore the cost of their replacement is not recoverable in this action. Finally, we hold that the trial court improperly trebled the prejudgment interest on the “punitive” portion of the CFA damages award. In awarding prejudgment interest on the entire CFA damages award, the trial court incorrectly focused on the purpose and intent of the CFA, which is punitive, rather than the purpose and intent of Rule 4:42-11, which is compensatory. [Approved for publication.]
