Community Association Law

Recent Decision Finding CTA Unconstitutional Casts Doubt on Its Fate

Ansell Grimm April 10, 2024

As we recently discussed in this blog post, homeowner and condominium associations (“Community Associations”), are subject to the detailed and complicated reporting requirements of the federal Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). The compliance deadlines for Community Associations to disclose their “beneficial ownership information” are approaching. However, a March 1 decision by a U.S. district court judge in Alabama, issued just 60 days after the CTA’s effective date, has called into question the ultimate enforceability and constitutionality of the law.

In National Small Business United v. Yellen, Judge Liles C. Burke granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that “the CTA is unconstitutional because it ‘exceeds the Constitution’s limits on the legislative branch and lacks a sufficient nexus to any enumerated power to be a necessary or proper means of achieving Congress’ policy goals.'”

Critically, the court’s order enjoining enforcement of the CTA applies only to the plaintiffs, including the National Small Business Association (NSBA) and its approximately 60,000 members. While the decision is limited to the plaintiffs in the case, the decision is seen as a positive one from the perspective of Community Associations as it sets groundwork for other courts to follow suit concerning enforceability. Community Associations throughout the country have serious concerns about the intrusive reporting requirements of the CTA given that those who serve on the boards of associations are volunteer homeowners. The extensive and invasive reporting requirements of the CTA are likely to deter participation on Community Association boards. This decision provides some hope to Community Associations that the law will ultimately not be enforceable and/or will be amended as to those required to report.

Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Department of Justice and FinCEN, the government agency tasked with the CTA’s implementation and enforcement, quickly filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Whatever the appellate court decides, there is a decent chance that the CTA’s fate will wind up in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Until then, or there is an amendment to the CTA, Community Associations should presume they will need to report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN by the dates outlined in our earlier blog post.

For further information and assistance with your Community Association’s CTA compliance, please contact Nicole Miller in Ansell.Law’s Community Association practice group.

New Jersey Supreme Court Affirms Condominium’s Ability to Limit Alleged “Emotional Support Animals,” Clarifying the Process To Be Used For ESA Accommodations

Ansell Grimm March 18, 2024

By David J. Byrne

On Wednesday, March 13th, New Jersey’s Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in the Players Place II Condominium Association v. K.P. case. In 2018, a resident claiming to be disabled for New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) adopted a dog that would ultimately weigh almost 65 lbs. despite Players Place II’s rule prohibiting dogs weighing more than 30 lbs. The association rejected the request, concluding that the resident did not need accommodation because she could have adopted a dog that weighed less than 30 lbs. (in which case, issues connected with disability and LAD would have been irrelevant). Further, the association concluded that the resident was neither “disabled” for the purposes of LAD nor was this particular 60+ lb. dog necessary to afford her equal use and enjoyment of her unit. The association prevailed at trial concerning LAD, establishing that its 30 lb. weight limit rule was reasonable and that the resident was not disabled for LAD. The association also prevailed on appeal, with the appellate court concluding that while the resident may be disabled, the particular dog in question was not necessary to afford the resident’s equal use and enjoyment of her unit.

The New Jersey Supreme Court decision focused on two (2) things. First, it clarified for everyone going forward how emotional support animal requests made by residents claiming to be disabled must be handled by both the resident and the housing provider (whether a condominium, apartment complex or otherwise). If possible, the parties should engage in a good-faith collaborative discussion before the actual adoption of the animal in question. The court set forth how LAD should be applied in these situations, what the resident must demonstrate, and what the housing provider must demonstrate. The court interpreted the relevant parts of the LAD so that relevant words, such as “disability,” are more easily understood. The court ruled that an ESA doesn’t necessarily need to have been “prescribed” by a health care professional. The court articulated the factors a housing provider must consider when deciding whether a request can be reasonably accommodated.

Second, the Supreme Court focused on the particular facts of the dispute between Players Place II and K.P. More specifically, whether an association must always grant the accommodation request of one claiming to be disabled, how the LAD must be applied in the face of an accommodation request, and whether Players Place II’s rejection of this resident’s request constituted a violation of LAD. In this regard, the Supreme Court agreed with Players Place II that the resident bears the overall burden of proof. The resident must prove that she is, in fact, disabled as “disabled” as defined by LAD and that the accommodation desired is necessary to alleviate at least one (1) symptom of the resident’s disability. Only then must an association establish that the request cannot be reasonably accommodated. The Supreme Court concluded that the association and the resident should proceed back to the original court where another trial should take place, a trial that decides whether this resident needs this particular animal to afford equal use and enjoyment of her unit and, if so, whether Players Place II can reasonably accommodate the animal.

Ultimately, the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision should help New Jersey’s association better understand the law and how to apply it when faced with an ESA request. The decision also confirmed that associations, depending upon the circumstance, may very well have the right to reject an ESA request. Lastly, the Supreme Court’s decision leaves open, to be decided at a 2nd trial, whether it can deny this accommodation request without violating the LAD.

Department Chair David Byrne discusses the case with Law360 (subscription required) and Bloomberg Law.

All condo and co-op boards in New Jersey should consult with experienced community association counsel to ensure compliance. If you have questions or concerns, please contact David Byrne or one of the attorneys in our Community Association Law practice group.

Most Commercial Property-Owning Entities and HOAs Must Now Report Ownership Information to the Federal Government Under the Corporate Transparency Act

Ansell Grimm February 13, 2024

By Nicole D. Miller and Melanie J. Scroble

Most entities that own commercial property, as well as homeowner and condominium associations (“Community Associations”), are among the over 36 million other American businesses and organizations that must now provide the federal government with detailed information about their ownership and controlling interests.

That is because the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which became effective on January 1, 2024, mandates that all “Reporting Companies” covered by the law disclose “Beneficial Ownership Information” (BOI) to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) division of the U.S. Treasury Department.

With an effective date of January 1, 2024, and with mandatory reporting deadlines approaching, commercial property owners and Community Associations need to understand what obligations, if any, they have under the CTA, whether they are a covered “Reporting Company,” and what information they need to provide FinCEN by the applicable deadline.

What Is the Corporate Transparency Act?

Signed into law in 2021, the CTA is part of an expansive federal government effort to crack down on illegal money laundering and “the use of shell and front companies by illicit actors who use them to obfuscate their identities and launder ill-gotten gains through the United States.” Unlike most federal regulatory schemes that primarily apply to larger companies, the CTA targets “smaller, more lightly regulated entities,” according to FinCEN. This focus on small entities is one reason FinCEN estimated that 90% of businesses and organizations in the U.S. are subject to the CTA’s disclosure requirements.

Almost All Property Owning-Entities and HOAs Are Covered “Reporting Companies”

Subject to significant exceptions, as discussed below, a “Reporting Company” that must comply with the CTA is any corporation, limited liability company, or any other entity created by filing a document (e.g., Articles of Incorporation) with a secretary of state or equivalent agency. Entities like general partnerships or sole proprietorships that can be established without such filings are not subject to the CTA’s disclosure and reporting requirements.

Accordingly, individuals and general partnerships that own commercial property have no obligations under the act. But, unless they fall within one of the listed exceptions, all other property-owning entities will need to provide their BOI to FinCEN.

Most Community Associations are “Reporting Companies” under the act since they are usually organized by filing articles of incorporation with a secretary of state. Their tax-exempt status under Section 528 of the Internal Revenue Code does not spare Community Associations from their reporting obligations. While the CTA specifically exempts 501(c) non-profit organizations from reporting requirements, it does not exempt Section 528 organizations.

Entities Excluded From the CTA’s Reporting Requirements

Most entities excluded from the CTA’s reporting requirements are already subject to beneficial ownership reporting and disclosure obligations under other laws, so filing such disclosures under the CTA would be redundant.

As stated in Section(a)(11)(B) of the CTA, these entities do not have to comply with the CTA’s BOI reporting requirements:

Banks.
Bank holding companies.
Credit unions.
Insurance companies.
Issuers of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or that must file supplementary and periodic information under Section 15(d) of the 1934 Act.
Brokers, dealers, and any other entities registered with the SEC under the 1934 Act.
Registered investment advisors under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
Public accounting firms.
Companies employing more than 20 people full-time in the U.S. or that filed a federal income tax return in the prior year showing more than $5 million in gross sales or receipts and have an operating presence in the U.S.
Any entity that:
- Has existed for over one year.
- Has not sent or received funds over $1,000 or experienced an ownership change in the previous 12 months.
- Is not actively engaged in business.
- Is not owned by a foreign individual.

and

Does not otherwise hold any assets, including ownership interests, in any corporation, limited liability company, or other entity.

Disclosures Required About “Company Applicants” and “Beneficial Owners”

In addition to basic corporate information such as name, address, and tax ID number, Reporting Companies must provide FinCEN with BOI about two groups of individuals: “Company Applicants” and “Beneficial Owners.”

As defined in the Final Rule, a “company applicant” is “the individual who directly files the document that first creates the domestic reporting company” and “the individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling such filing if more than one individual is involved in the filing of the document.” Effectively, the person who filed the documents required to create the entity will be considered the “Company Applicant,” whose BOI must be reported.

Notably, the reporting of applicant information only applies to Reporting Companies created from and after January 1, 2024. Such new Reporting Companies need not provide FinCEN with updates regarding Company Applicant information after their initial disclosure.

“Beneficial Owner” = 25% Ownership OR “Substantial Control” Over Entity

All Reporting Companies must disclose information about their “Beneficial Owners.” As defined in the Final Rule, a “Beneficial Owner” is any person who, directly or indirectly, either:

Owns or controls at least 25% of a reporting company’s ownership interests; or
Exercises substantial control over a reporting company.

Importantly, ownership interests through intermediary entities qualify as ownership of a Reporting Company. As specified in the Final Rule, a person may be deemed a beneficial owner “through ownership or control of one or more intermediary entities, or ownership or control of the ownership interests of any such entities, that separately or collectively own or control ownership interests of the reporting company.”

“Substantial Control”

Determining whether a person exercises “substantial control” over an entity so they are considered a “Beneficial Owner” involves an analysis of the person’s actual authority and the actions they are empowered to take on behalf of an entity. Under the Final Rule, an individual has “Substantial Control” over an entity if they:

Serve as a senior officer of the entity.
Have authority over the appointment or removal of any senior officer or a majority of the board of directors (or similar body) of the entity or
Direct, determine, or have substantial influence over important decisions made by the entity, such as:
- Entry into and termination of contracts.
- Acquisition, sale, or lease of the company’s principal assets.
- Reorganization, dissolution, or merger.
- Selection or termination of business lines or venture.
- Amendment of any governance documents of the reporting company.

For Community Associations, this means that the voluntary members of the board of directors or board of trustees will be considered individuals with “substantial control” over the covered entity, i.e. the association.

Information That Must Be Reported to FinCEN

Non-exempt Reporting Companies must provide FinCEN with the following information regarding individuals who qualify as Company Applicants or Beneficial Owners:

Full legal name.
Date of birth.
Street addresses (identified as a current residential or business street address).
Non-expired state identification document or passport.

Reporting Deadlines

As noted, the CTA’s compliance deadlines largely depend on when the “Reporting Company” was formed.

Entities Formed in Calendar Year 2024: Covered Reporting Companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2025, must submit their BOI report within 90 days after the date of the entity’s formation (i.e., the filing date of its Articles or Certificate).
Entities Formed Before January 1, 2024: Covered Reporting Companies formed before 2024 must report their BOI on or before January 1, 2025.
Entities Formed on or After January 1, 2025: Covered Reporting Companies formed after 2024 must file their BOI within 30 days after its date of formation.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Commercial property owners and Community Associations that fail to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements face significant penalties. Any entity or person that “willfully provides, or attempts to provide, false or fraudulent information or willfully fails to report when required” faces civil penalties of $500 per day, criminal fines of up to $250,000, and a maximum of five years in federal prison.

Given the complexities in determining an entity’s beneficial ownership and non-compliance consequences, property-owning entities and Community Associations should consult with experienced counsel to ensure they satisfy any reporting obligations under the CTA. For further information and assistance with your entity’s CTA compliance, please contact one of the attorneys in Ansell Grimm & Aaron’s Commercial Real Estate or Community Association practice groups.

New Jersey Enacts Stringent New Inspection, Evaluation, and Maintenance Requirements for Condominium and Co-Op Buildings

Ansell Grimm January 11, 2024

By Elysa D. Bergenfeld and Nicole D. Miller

On January 8, 2024, New Jersey’s already-stringent building codes for residential construction became even more so when Gov. Phil Murphy signed S2760/A4384 into law. The sweeping legislation establishes additional requirements for the regular inspection, evaluation, and maintenance of certain types of condominiums and cooperative apartments in the state.

The new law was enacted in the wake of the 2021 condominium tragedy in Surfside, Florida, where 98 lives were lost due to structural issues that were not addressed. Accordingly, much of the law focuses on early detection of potential structural flaws and deficiencies.

Owners of property covered by the law must now ensure their buildings undergo routine structural inspections to ensure the safety and stability of the building. These inspections must be performed by licensed engineers and architects and adhere to industry best practices and standards. The law requires periodic reserve studies and allows for a ten-year “catch up” for reserves.

As outlined in the law, its requirements apply to any residential condominium or cooperative building with a primary load-bearing system comprised of a concrete, masonry, steel, or hybrid structure including, but not limited to, heavy timber and a building with podium decks, but not including an “excluded structure” as defined in the law.

All condo and co-op boards in New Jersey should consult with experienced community association counsel to determine whether the new law applies to their buildings and what to do to ensure compliance. If you have questions or concerns, please contact one of the attorneys in Ansell Grimm & Aaron’s Community Association Law practice group.

September 2022 Newsletter

Ansell Grimm September 26, 2022

Klein Helping Clients with Property Sales and Acquisitions Across the State

Jason S. Klein, Esq. (a) assisted a client in the acquisition of a 200-plus unit multifamily complex located in Morris County, through a membership interest purchase, which also included assistance with financing from a large regional bank and multiple 1031 exchanges; (b) assisted a client in the disposition of retail center on the boardwalk in Cape May county; (c) assisted a client in the sale and simultaneous disposition of a property in located on Route 22 in Somerset County; and (d) represented a client in the simultaneous acquisition of two retail properties in Monmouth County, from two (2) separate owners and assisted with negotiating and closing the acquisition financing in connection therewith with a large New Jersey-based bank.

Come See Us at the CAI Expo on October 20

The Community Association Practice Group will be exhibiting at the New Jersey Community Associations 2022 Annual Conference & Expo on October 20.
The 2022 CAI Conference & Expo will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. at The Event Center @ iPlay America located at 110 Schanck Road, Freehold, NJ.
CAI’s Annual Conference & Expo provides learning and networking opportunities for homeowners, managers, and business partners. Registration is free for all homeowners and community association managers and includes complimentary breakfast and lunch, educational programs, and multiple chances to win $1,000 during the show (must be present to win).
When you are at the expo, please visit us at Booth #823. You can also contact David J. Byrne, Esq. if you wish to set up a meeting with one of our attorneys while you are at the conference.

Brodsky Wins Approval for Projects Across Monmouth County

Zoning and Land Use Department co-chair Rick Brodsky, Esq. had a very productive summer winning approval for several projects before municipal boards throughout the county.

In June, the Shrewsbury Land Use Board voted unanimously to grant Use Variance and site plan approval, permitting the Applicant, Restore Hyper Wellness, to operate a health and wellness facility for customers seeking general wellness and anti-aging services and athletic recovery, including natural reduction of inflammation at 1079 Broad St. In July The Marlboro Township Zoning Board voted unanimously to grant variance and site plan approval permitting the Waitt Funeral Home to undertake significant renovations, upgrades and additions to its existing, long-standing building on Route 79.

Also in July, the Ocean Township Zoning Board, unanimously approved the application of Gold Coast Cadillac, granting site plan approval, with variances, permitting the renovation/expansion of the existing Cadillac car dealership on Route 35.

In August, the Long Branch Planning Board adopted the Resolution of Approval for its July unanimous decision to permit a four-lot Major subdivision application from Chelsea LLC.

Moin, Oliver, and Sherman Join Ansell Grimm & Aaron

Three new attorneys, Irina Moin, Esq., Jonathan Sherman, Esq., and Leigh Oliver, Esq., have joined the firm. Ms. Moin is licensed to practice in NY and NJ and will be joining both the Corporate Finance and Banking Department and Cannabis Law Department.

Ms. Oliver is a new associate in the Family Law practice and Mr. Sherman is working in the Commercial Real Estate Department.

Bauchner Receives New Jersey Law Journal Innovator of the Year Award, Appointed to NJSBA Foundation Committees

Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq. has been named one of the New Jersey Law Journal’s “Innovators of the Year” for 2022. Bauchner is one of just four attorneys in the state selected for the honor.

Bauchner also has been appointed by the New Jersey State Bar Foundation to the Publication Oversight Committee and the Editorial Advisory Board of the Respect Newsletter for 2022-23 by Foundation President Kathleen N. Fennelly, Esq.

The New Jersey State Bar Foundation is committed to the principle that public understanding of our legal system is essential to preserving the liberties that are fundamental to our democracy.

Shapiro and Barber Win Relief Against Prospective Buyer’s False Claim

Through, targeted discovery, Lawrence Shapiro, Esq. and Kelsey Barber, Esq. succeeded in having a contract buyer dismiss its complaint to enforce a contract of sale and discharge a Lis Pendens recorded against AGA’s client’s commercial property. Plaintiff Lebanon 123, LLC sought to compel Kullman Associates, LLC to sell real property known as the Kullman Corporate Campus in Lebanon, New Jersey for $13,500,000.

Kullman terminated the contract and refused to transfer title claiming that Plaintiff failed to meet its contractual obligations, including fully funding the deposit. Despite representations from the title company escrow agent that the deposit was received, AGA’s strategic discovery uncovered evidence that the deposit was never fully funded and, in fact, what had been funded was returned to Plaintiff, even before the suit was filed. AGA then moved for summary judgment and put Plaintiff on notice of their claims being frivolous which resulted in Plaintiff voluntarily dismissing its complaint and freeing the property for Kullman’s use and remarketing.

Bauchner to Moderate NJSBA Cannabis Law seminar

Joshua Bauchner, Esq. and Lisa Gora, Esq. of Epstein Becker & Green, PC will moderate a discussion on the latest developments in cannabis law at the New Jersey Law Center in New Brunswick, on October 26.

The topics covered in the seminar include:

Psychedelics — The New Cannabis
Cannabis in NJ Towns: Municipal and Local Applicant Perspectives
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

There will also be a Q & A session The event runs from 2-5 p.m. and a companion webcast will be available online. Attendees can receive Continuing Legal Education credit for NJ, PA, and NY. Information on the credits provided is available on the event registration page.

A happy hour will follow at the Law Center, after which the NJSBA Cannabis Law Committee, which Bauchner and Gora co-chair, will convene.

Court Case Corrects Planning Board Denial

Litigation Department co-chair Lawrence Shapiro, Esq. succeeded in overturning the Planning Board of the Borough of Rumson’s denial of an application to subdivide property into two developable lots.

In overcoming the Board’s decision on behalf of the applicant, Michael McCarty, Shapiro demonstrated that the Board had erred in siding with objecting neighbors in refusing to grant minimal variances of lot circle, front yard setback, and lot width/frontage.

Notably, the Court reversed the Board’s decision resulting in the approval of the subdivision, with variances, on behalf of the applicant. In doing so, the Court found the Board’s reasoning to be a “sham” for its desire to maintain larger lot sizes in the zone.

Rosenstein Wins Long Court Battle to Protect Client

Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC was retained by a trucking and rigging company after one of its employees sustained substantial injuries on a jobsite. Despite the project being covered by an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP), the contractor that retained our client failed to notify our client of the OCIP and did not enroll our client in the program. Making matters worse, our client’s insurance brokers failed to identify and advise the client about an exclusion in its commercial general liability policy that contained an “Absolute Employee and Worker Injury and Liability Exclusion endorsement,” leaving our client vulnerable to the claims asserted in the action. While our client was shielded against direct liability from the plaintiffs, the employee filed an action against the other entities involved in the project — some of whom subsequently filed a third-party action against our client.

Seth Rosenstein, Esq. of AGA’s litigation practice group handled this matter, aggressively defending the action and adding the client’s insurance brokers as fourth-party defendants on the basis that but for their negligence, the client would not have been left without insurance coverage for third-party action claims. After over four years of litigation, our efforts resulted in an ideal settlement whereby our client did not contribute any funds to the settlement and received a global release from all parties involved.

David J. Byrne to Present at CAI Webinar on April 20

Ansell Grimm April 13, 2022

The one-hour webinars focus on important issues affecting the rights, operations, and business of common interest communities. Mr. Byrne’s presentation, on April 20^th, will focus on the rights of — and strategies available to — community associations facing the demands of owners and/or residents who claim to be disabled, including those who seek accommodations with respect to animals characterized as service or emotional support

Registration is free and currently open for all CAI-NJ members via the CAI-NJ website. Community association managers will receive 1 CEU credit for attending.

Come see us at the CAI Expo on Oct. 21

Ansell Grimm October 6, 2021

AGA’s Community Association Practice Group will be exhibiting at the New Jersey Community Associations 2021 Annual Conference & Expo on October 21^st, 2021.

The 2021 CAI Conference & Expo will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. at The Event Center @ iPlay America located at 110 Schanck Road, Freehold, NJ.

CAI’s Annual Conference & Expo provides learning and networking opportunities for homeowners, managers and business partners. Registration is free for all homeowners and community association managers and includes complimentary breakfast and lunch, educational programs, and multiple chances to win $1,000 during the show (must be present to win).

When you are at the expo, please visit us at Booth #823. You can also contact David J. Byrne, Esq., if you wish to set up a meeting with one of our attorneys while you are at the conference. Mr. Byrne can be reached at djb@62q.f7d.myftpupload.com or by calling 609-751-5551.

Hudson Valley CAI In-Person Expo slated for September 30

Ansell Grimm September 16, 2021

Hudson Valley CAI Chapter President Stacey R. Patterson Esq., and the entire Hudson Valley Board is pleased to announce the return of our IN-PERSON Expo on Sept. 30, 2021 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. The Expo will be held at Homewood Suites in New Windsor, NY Our Hudson Valley vendors from attorneys to accountants, engineers to insurance agents, and everyone in between will be there to welcome back our loyal members and greet new members. The Expo promises to be filled with education and entertainment including interactive games, door prizes, and refreshments.

Ms. Patterson says: “I am looking forward to seeing familiar faces and getting acquainted with the new ones. It’s been way too long since we’ve been able to get together.”

Registration is free and open until the day of the event. Those who register prior to Sept. 23 are eligible for a $200 drawing.

Byrne set to speak at Webinar

Ansell Grimm August 12, 2021

David J. Byrne Esq., Chair of Ansell Grimm & Aaron’s Community Association Law Group, will be a featured presenter at the Community Associations Institute of New Jersey’s Wednesday, August 18^th, Webinar. CAI’s Webinar one-hour Webinar will begin at noon. Mr. Byrne’s presentation will focus on the rights of, and strategies available to, community associations facing demands for accommodations, emotional support and service animals.

Registration is free and currently open for all CAI-NJ members via the CAI-NJ website. Community association managers will receive 1 CEU credit for attending.

Patterson Appointed HVCAI President

Ansell Grimm January 12, 2021

Stacey R. Patterson, Esq. has been appointed as the 2021 President of the Community Association Institute Hudson Valley Chapter Board of Directors. Ms. Patterson has been an active member of the Chapter since 2010 and a member of its Board of Directors since 2017. Ms. Patterson previously served on the Chapter’s executive committee, taking on leadership roles in numerous seminars and educational sessions offered by the Chapter. In her new role as President, she is looking forward to implementing new ways to increase membership and to convey important information to its current members during these unprecedented times.

Ms. Patterson has served as counsel with Ansell Grimm & Aaron PC in the Community Association Law practice group for the past 6 years. Since 2000, she has represented community associations in transactional, litigation, and government-related matters. Ms. Patterson has extensive experience in dealing with issues pertaining to the Non-Profit Corporations Acts, Condominium Acts, and Real Property Acts in New York and New Jersey.

Community Association Law

Klein Helping Clients with Property Sales and Acquisitions Across the State

Come See Us at the CAI Expo on October 20

Brodsky Wins Approval for Projects Across Monmouth County

Moin, Oliver, and Sherman Join Ansell Grimm & Aaron

Bauchner Receives New Jersey Law Journal Innovator of the Year Award, Appointed to NJSBA Foundation Committees

Shapiro and Barber Win Relief Against Prospective Buyer’s False Claim

Bauchner to Moderate NJSBA Cannabis Law seminar

Court Case Corrects Planning Board Denial

Rosenstein Wins Long Court Battle to Protect Client

Recent Posts