Case Law Summaries

Georgiadis v. Georgiadis

CORPORATIONS; DEADLOCKED REMEDIES — Where a court institutes a receivership as a remedy for deadlock or in a case of shareholder oppression, and that remedy permits one of the shareholders to buy the entire corporation, that shareholder may lose the right to buy the corporation if it allows the permitted time period to pass and this is true even if the untimely acting shareholder offers to match a later purchase offer from an unrelated third party.

• Opinion Date: January 12, 2010
• Business Law

First Atlantic Federal Credit Union v. Pine Belt Automotive, Inc.

ARBITRATION — Where an agreement contains an arbitration provision limited to “this agreement,” and other, unrelated agreements do not contain an arbitration provision, disputes under those other agreements will not be subject to arbitration because private parties can only be compelled to arbitrate to the extent they have agreed to do so.

• Opinion Date: February 19, 2010
• Business Law

Kim & Bae, P.C. v. Eunsung Electric, Co., Ltd.

ATTORNEYS FEES — Where a law firm represents itself in an action, it is, in essence, acting pro se and the fees a law firm might charge itself are not strictly speaking attorneys fees and therefore the law firm is not entitled to collect those fees pursuant to a contractual provision or pursuant to Court Rules.

• Opinion Date: April 30, 2010
• Business Law

GMAC v. Pittella

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT; ARBITRATION — When an arbitration agreement does not clearly or ambiguously demonstrate that a customer intended to waive his or her right to litigate under the Consumer Fraud Act, requiring arbitration would not be fair or equitable.

• Opinion Date: May 26, 2010
• Business Law

Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon

CONDEMNATION; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS — Even though the statute of limitations to pursue an action for just compensation is governed by a six-year statute of limitations, where the condemning authority continued to insist that no taking had taken place, and then shifts gears years later to claim that there was a taking, the statute of limitations for filing an inverse condemnation action will not be enforced.

• Opinion Date: June 22, 2010
• Real Property Law

Old Corlies Avenue Preservation Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Twsp. of Neptune

ZONING — Where an applicant’s proposal does not call for subdivision of its property and the applicant’s proposed use is similar to those on nearby properties, a land use board, in granting variances, is not rezoning by means of granting variances, but is performing its proper function in a typical application for variances.

• Opinion Date: May 25, 2010
• Real Property Law

Iron Mountain Information Management, Inc. v. The City of Newark

CONDEMNATION; NOTICES —Tenants of properties subject to taking by eminent domain do not have the right to actual notice of a blight designation because the New Jersey legislature intended that such notices are only required to be sent to owners of record and to those whose names are listed on the tax assessor’s records.

• Opinion Date: May 19, 2010
• Real Property Law

Dudley v. Township of Manchester

ZONING; NON-CONFORMING USES — A land use board should have the opportunity to inquire into the appropriateness of an expansion of a non-conforming structure and to determine its impact on the municipality’s zoning plan and adjacent properties; therefore, even if a proposed expansion of a non-conforming structure does not exasperate the non-conformity, the land use board may take into consideration that the property is subject to a non-conformity.

• Opinion Date: May 19, 2010
• Real Property Law

Historic Paulus Hook Association v. The Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of Jersey City

ZONING; APPEALS — Appeal of an administrative zoning officer’s decision must be taken within twenty days after the date the interested party knew or should have known of the officer’s action.

• Opinion Date: February 16, 2010
• Real Property Law

The West Baptist Church v. Church of God of the Garden State, Inc.

DEEDS; FRAUD —If a grantor is fraudulently persuaded by a grantee to execute a deed in a grantee’s favor, the court may invalidate the transaction by reason of the fraud.

• Opinion Date: March 1, 2010
• Real Property Law