Case Law Summaries

Sills Cummis & Gross, P.C. v. Matrix One Riverfront Plaza, L.L.C.

LEASES; INTERPRETATION — Parties to a lease are free to set their own definition for what would otherwise be commonly understood terms and if they define “fair market rental” to mean the value of the property as if it were vacant and unencumbered by their lease, this means that the parties have agreed to turn back the hands of time and treat the new or extended lease as if the past had not existed.

• Opinion Date: December 3, 2009
• Real Property Law

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Kim

FORECLOSURES; PRIORITY — Even if a judgment of foreclosure and a sheriff’s deed erroneously call for payment to a lien holder with lesser priority than one who is entitled to the payment, if the skipped-over lien holder does not file an action within the one year limitation period and there are no truly exceptional circumstances to excuse such delay, the lower priority lien holder, though not entitled to any surplus funds, may keep the money.

• Opinion Date: December 31, 2009
• Real Property Law

1099, L.L.C. v. Recreational Health Care Concepts, Inc.

MORTGAGES; JUDGMENT CREDITORS —If a mortgagee’s assignment of rents is recorded after a judgment creditor has levied on rents being paid by a tenant of the mortgaged property, the judgment creditor is entitled to garnish those rents ahead of the assignee and to collect the money so received.

• Opinion Date: December 30, 2009
• Real Property Law

Najduch v. Township of Independence Planning Board

ZONING; VARIANCES; SITE PLAN APPROVAL —Under the Municipal Land Use Law, a planning board does not have the jurisdiction to grant a use variance and therefore cannot grant site plan approval that is conditioned upon the applicant later obtaining a use variance or zoning change because to allow an applicant to bifurcate its application would circumvent the legislative intent that zoning boards have the exclusive power to hear such applications.

• Opinion Date: December 30, 2009
• Real Property Law

Robert DeRuggiero, Inc. v. Sanchez

BROKERS; COMMISSIONS — Under the “substantial break doctrine,” a broker will be entitled to a commission if it produced a willing buyer, able to consummate a sale, and facilitated negotiations that led to the sale without a substantial break in negotiations even after the brokerage agreement has expired.

• Opinion Date: December 24, 2009
• Real Property Law

Stryker Spine v. Surgical Orthomedics, Inc.

NON-COMPETITION; INJUNCTIONS — Where a party violates a non-competition agreement, but the protected party allows a long period of competitive conduct before suing, the otherwise protected party may lose the right to obtain injunctive relief while retaining the right to seek damages.

• Opinion Date: October 19, 2009
• Business Law

South Brunswick Center, L.L.C. v. Township of South Brunswick

ZONING; DEVELOPERS — A developer’s agreement is not an independent source of rights either as to its substantive provisions or as a basis for denying an opportunity to be heard by an appropriate governmental agency to develop a factual basis for relief from its terms.

• Opinion Date: December 28, 2009
• Real Property Law

Estate of Cohen v. Booth Computers

PARTNERSHIPS; BUY-SELL — A partnership agreement need not use any commonly understood meaning for the term “net worth” and can give that term the meaning that the partners choose to use and, unless a court’s conscience has been shocked, a court will not write a fairer buy-out provision for the partners.

• Opinion Date: August 4, 2009
• Business Law

Godfrey v. Martin

ARBITRATION; UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT — New Jersey’s version of the Uniform Arbitration Act mandates that a court grant a stay of arbitration rather than a dismissal in a judicial proceeding.

• Opinion Date: December 17, 2009
• Business Law

Pathmark Stores, Inc. v. Bernard Oster, Inc.

EASEMENTS — Where a tenant also has an easement across parts of the improved land, its landlord may not construct improvements upon the encumbered land in contradiction to the terms of the easement unless the easement holder grants its consent.

• Opinion Date: July 29, 2009
• Real Property Law