Skip to main content



Frias v. MRS Associates, Inc.

FDCPA — Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a debt collector is not required to tell the debtor how it acquired the account, only to tell the consumer of the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; the debtor’s consent to an assignment of the debt is not required; and the Act neither prohibits offers or settlement nor requires specific payment options to be offered.

Philip v. Sardo & Batista, P.C.

FDCPA — Using “vs” in a caption or collection notice is not a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act if the notice, when read in its entirety, would not be understood by an unsophisticated consumer to mean that a law suit had been filed, especially when the body of the letter says that the debt were not paid, the creditor “will institute suit.”

Bikoff v. Garcia

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES; DISSOLUTION — When members of a limited liability company treat monies they advanced to the company as loans, rather than as capital contributions, a court can find it inequitable to treat the loans as capital contributions at the time of dissolution and it doesn’t matter if there were no promissory notes or repayment terms.

Fulbrook v. City of Camden

REDEVELOPMENT; CONFLICT OF INTEREST — If state law allows one person to hold two governmental roles, then it is not a conflict of interest in the land use and redevelopment process if that person serves in two roles in the process.

Cohn v. Hinger

LANDLORD-TENANT; HABITABILITY — If a residential tenant sues to recover damages based on an alleged defect in its premises, it must first have given its landlord notice of the defect, requested correction, and gives its landlord a reasonable time to correct the defect.

Shoreline Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Hafen

CONTRACTORS — If a homeowner suing its contractor wishes to present government documents, such as inspection reports, that do not bear a signature affixed to them in an official capacity by a governmental officer or employee, the homeowner must furnish extrinsic evidence of authenticity, such as a certification that the document is a copy of an original record.

Capital Bank of New Jersey v. Goldstein

LOANS; DEEDS — Although a borrower’s ordinary expectation in giving a deed in lieu is that the lender is accepting the deed in satisfaction of a debt, if the parties have a written agreement to the contrary, then the provisions of the written agreement will prevail.

Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Cunder

MORTGAGES; FORECLOSURE; ATTORNEYS — A lender’s attorney has no duty to a borrower to record an order vacating a sheriff’s sale and declaring that the deed and the recording of the deed were void.

Housing Authority of the City of Passaic v. Jackson

LANDLORD-TENANT; HOUSING AUTHORITY; EVICTION — A housing authority, seeking to evict a tenant because a family member was found guilty of drug crimes on the authority’s property, must present proofs from which a court can evaluate and confirm whether the authority’s decision to evict is a reasonable exercise of the authority’s discretion.

Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. v. Township of Raritan

AFFORDABLE HOUSING; DEVELOPERS — Even though a moratorium was placed on the collection of a nonresidential project development fees, if the developer already had committed itself to make pay a fee prior to the moratorium, it must still meet that obligation, but only in accordance with the terms of its initial commitment.

Page 5 of 600 pages « First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last »

MEISLIK & MEISLIK
66 Park Street • Montclair, New Jersey 07042
tel: 973-783-3000 • fax: 973-744-5757 • info@meislik.com