Bridget K. Dorney, Esq. wrote an article titled “Getting Out of Debt Is Easier Than You Think: Bankruptcy Basics”, which appears in the July/August 2013 Edition of The Monmouth County Woman publication. In this article, Ms. Dorney provides insight on how someone might go about filing a bankruptcy claim; the differences in Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 and the benefits received from filing a claim. To read the article in it’s entirety, click here.
Lawrence H. Shapiro, Esq., a Member of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C., representing the Borough of Harvey Cedars achieved a landmark victory before the New Jersey Supreme Court in the case, Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan. By a 5-0 margin, the State’s highest Court overturned rulings by the Superior Court and Appellate Division in holding that evidence of the positive benefits from beach replenishment and dune construction shore protection projects should be considered by a jury in determining just compensation in partial takings cases. The decision marks a change in the law of the State which previously required a condemnor to demonstrate special benefits were received by a property owner in order to set off damages alleged to have been inflicted on property remaining after a partial taking; something that was never achieved in any reported decision in New Jersey. The decision in Karan creates a new standard by which such evidence should be presented to a jury.
The Supreme Court decision has been hailed as saving shore protection projects in the State due to the fact that even after Superstorm Sandy, many oceanfront property owners have refused to provide the easements necessary for the construction of protective dune and beach projects to begin, holding out for large payments for their easements. The Court’s ruling reversed a jury award to the Karan’s of $375,000 for the impact on their oceanfront view from a dune construction and beach replenishment project, and returns the matter to the trial court for a new trial in which the Borough will be able to present evidence of the benefits of the project, which it was previously prevented from doing.
Mr. Shapiro handled all aspects of the case including the jury trial, appeal, application to the Supreme Court and briefing and arguing the merits before that Court.
Read more at NY Times.com; NJ.com or APP.com.
View Supreme Court Oral Argument video here
Michael A. Pane, 45, passed away on Tuesday, July 2, 2013 at Monmouth Medical Center, after a brief illness. He leaves behind his wife, Maryalice and two children, Alexander and Clarissa Pane. Although he was only with the AGA family for a short period of time, he will be greatly missed. READ MORE
Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq. recently published an article in the July 1, 2013 edition of the New Jersey Law Journal entitled “Fending off the Appointment of a Receiver.” In today’s stressful economic climate, commercial property owners often are the victims of their tenant’s problems. While a national tenant may file for bankruptcy with the expectation of reorganizing under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, the landlord is left having to service the mortgage without cash-flow from that tenant or any ability to commence an eviction or related action as a result of the automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362. Sooner or later (likely sooner) the Landlord’s bank will come calling in the form of a foreclosure action.
While the defaults under the mortgage present their own challenges (the rapid accrual of default interest, late fees, and attorneys’ fees and costs), the likely first step in the foreclosure action will be a Motion to Appoint a Receiver; indeed, this requested relief often is sought contemporaneously with the filing of the foreclosure complaint. The motion will seek the appointment of a receiver simply to collect rents or, more often these days, to take full managerial and operational control over the property divesting the Landlord of all its rights and interests (though not, title, as of yet). This article details some defenses the Borrower (née Landlord) can assert to ward off the appointment. For full article click here
This article was originally published in the July 1, 2013 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal.
Michael A. Pane, Esq. will be speaking on the topic of Affordable Housing and the Status of COAH at the Hot Topics in Municipal Law Seminar held on Tuesday, June 18th at 9am. The seminar is being held at the New Jersey Law Center, One Constitution Square, New Brunswick, NJ. For more information, please click here.
No Party May Assign this Agreement. This sentence appears to the untrained eye to be a simple and clear prohibition of an assignment in an agreement of sale. But, like in any legal document, nothing that appears to be simple and clear is simple or clear. Parties with this very clause in their agreement of sale have been permitted to assign all or a portion of their rights or duties thereunder due to a variety of reasons determined by various courts. If an assignment is prohibited in a purchase and sale agreement, can a party assign anyway? Does seller’s consent always have to be reasonable? This article answers those questions and discusses at length varying prohibitive assignment language that appears in a purchase and sale agreement, how such language has been interpreted by courts, and drafting tips for buyers and sellers on what language to use to best meet their needs in the transaction. To read more about this article by Melanie Scroble, Esq., please click here.
Note: This article was reprinted from the May 2013 issue of ALM Commercial Leasing Law and Strategy, with permission from ALM Law Journal.
Jessica T. Zolotorofe wrote an article which appears in the May/June 2013 edition of the Monmouth County Woman. In this article, Jessica provides tips to help individuals who may need to modify their existing mortgage due to loss of employment, increase in expenses, an illness, or other hardship. To read the article in its entirety, please click here.
Law360, New York (February 19, 2013, 2:37 PM ET) — A former Ramius Securities LLC manager sued Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP in New York state court on Friday, alleging the law firm disclosed privileged attorney-client communications to make him the fall guy in a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority investigation of the broker-dealer….
Please click here to read the article in its entirety.
Lawrence H. Shapiro, Esq., lead counsel for the Borough of Harvey Cedars in the matter of Harvey Cedars v. Karan currently pending before the New Jersey Supreme Court, will be a featured panelist at the National Business Institute (NBI) seminar “Eminent Domain from Start to Finish”. The seminar will be on June 3, 2013 and is being held at the Doubletree by Hilton Newark Airport. Should you wish to register, please contact NBI at 800-930-6182 or do so online at, www.nbi-sems.com.
Lawrence H. Shapiro, Esq., a condemnation attorney with ANSELL GRIMM & AARON, PC, will be a featured panelist at a Monmouth University Seminar, sponsored by the Kislak Real Estate Institute, on Wednesday, May 8th. The panel will discuss the eminent domain case of The Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan which is currently pending before the New Jersey Supreme Court in which Mr. Shapiro represents the Petitioner, Borough of Harvey Cedars. The case is presently scheduled for oral argument on May 13th or 14th.
The case deals with the ability of a condemning authority to present evidence of the positive effects of a beach restoration and dune construction project that was constructed in the Borough before Super Storm Sandy struck and which saved oceanfront homes in the Borough, such as the Karan’s, from certain destruction.
The issue is one that has not been reviewed or addressed by the Court in over 100 years and in light of Sandy has implications for beach and dune projects throughout the State. In fact, the State of New Jersey’s application to appear as Amicus in the matter has been granted.
The panel also features former Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, James Zazzali, Esq.