Case Law Summaries

Riviere v. Fu

CORPORATIONS; VEIL PIERCING — A corporation is a separate entity from its shareholders and, in the absence of fraud or injustice, the corporate veil will not be pierced to impose liability on its shareholders.

• Opinion Date: November 23, 2011
• Business Law

Allen v. V and A Bros., Inc.

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT; PERSONAL LIABILITY — Even though individuals are acting on behalf of an entity, such as a corporation, they still can be held liable as “persons” under the Consumer Fraud Act for certain affirmative acts.

• Opinion Date: July 7, 2011
• Business Law

Alboyacian v. BP Products North America, Inc.

FRANCHISES — When a franchisee makes claims for wrongful termination of its franchise, absent fraudulent inducement, negligent representation, and similar items, and the court rules that its franchise agreement had not, in fact, been terminated, those claims must be dismissed.

• Opinion Date: November 22, 2011
• Business Law

Ach Enterprises 1 LLC v. Viking Yacht Company

UCC; WARRANTIES — Under the Uniform Commercial Code, if a specific warranty period is stated, any alleged defect must be discovered during that period and because the Magnuson-Moss Act does not contain a statute of limitations, the court will look to the UCC warranty to see if the claim under that Act will be time-barred.

• Opinion Date: October 7, 2011
• Business Law

National Auto Dealers Exchange, L.P. v. Sauber

EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT — The Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its guidelines prohibit a creditor from requiring a spouse’s signature on a note when the applicant individually qualifies for credit; therefore, a court needs to determine whether, in any given situation, a spouse served as a personal guarantor solely because of the spouse’s marital status and without reliance on the spouse’s creditworthiness.

• Opinion Date: October 3, 2011
• Business Law

LoRusso v. Schaible

LOANS; GUARANTIES; CROSS-COLLATERALIZATION — Cross-collateralization clauses will be enforced, but if a subsequent loan does not reference the earlier document cross-collateralization clause and includes an integration clause barring reference to prior agreements, the later loan will not be considered to be cross-collateralized with the earlier loan.

• Opinion Date: September 22, 2011
• Business Law

Fifth Roc Jersey Associates, L.L.C. v. Town of Morristown

TAXATION; FREEZE ACT — Even in the absence of a direct tax appeal, the Tax Court can determine the validity of an added assessment imposed in a freeze year.

• Opinion Date: December 7, 2011
• Real Property Law

Carlson Family Foundation Inc. v. Borough of Paramus

TAXATION; CHAPTER 91 — Regardless of a taxpayer’s reporting period for income tax purposes, the taxpayer must furnish income and expense information for the period of October 1 through September 30 if the tax assessor so requires.

• Opinion Date: December 2, 2011
• Real Property Law

D. Russo, Inc. v. Romankow

ZONING; SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES — A court, when determining whether there are alternate sites available for locating a sexually oriented business, can use its reasonable judgment in determining the applicable, relevant market area for such a business.

• Opinion Date: December 2, 2011
• Real Property Law

T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Township of Freehold Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING; VARIANCES —Neither a previous denial on a site owner’s request for a variance nor on ongoing violation by the property owner will bar approval of a new application for a variance that contains significant changes from the one that was previously rejected.

• Opinion Date: October 17, 2011
• Real Property Law