Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Decision in Twin Rivers: Court Finds Common Interest Community Association’s Reasonable Restrictions Do Not Violate State Constitution Rights

By Stark & Stark on July 27th, 2007

Posted in Business & Commercial Law

Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Association

On Thursday, July 26, 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its much awaited and highly anticipated decision in Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Association.  In overturning the Appellate Division’s decision and reinstating the decision of the Trial Court, the Supreme Court found that common interest community associations could lawfully impose reasonable restrictions on its members – such as restricting the posting of political signs on common elements or allowing access to a community newsletter – and that such restrictions do not violate the New Jersey Constitution’s protections regarding freedom of expression and equal protection.

At issue in Twin Rivers was the question of whether the New Jersey Constitution’s speech and assembly clauses should be applied to limit the authority of homeowners’ associations to promulgate certain community-wide restrictions and, if so, under what circumstances.  In the lower court’s decision, Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Association, 383 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 2006), the Appellate Division found that because common interest community associations have supplanted certain responsibilities once undertaken by towns and municipalities, the individual members’ state constitutional rights to free speech outweigh the restrictions imposed by homeowners associations, even though such property is private rather than public.

In the Supreme Court’s decision, authored by Justice John E. Wallace, Jr., the Court determined that even in light of New Jersey’s broad interpretation of its constitutional free speech provisions, the “nature, purposes, and primary use of Twin Rivers property is for private purposes and does not favor a finding that the Association’s rules and regulations violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”  Moreover, the Court found that “plaintiffs’ expressional activities are not unreasonably restricted” by the Association’s rules and regulations.  Finally, the Court held that “the minor restrictions on plaintiffs’ expressional activities are not unreasonable or oppressive, and the Association is not acting as a municipality.”

You can read the Supreme Court’s decision in Twin Rivers here.

 

Multiple locations to better serve your needs—

Hamilton, NJ

100 American Metro Boulevard
Hamilton, NJ 08619
Phone: 609.896.9060
Secondary phone: 800.535.3425
Fax: 609.896.0629
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Philadelphia, PA

One Liberty Place, 1650 Market St., Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 267.907.9600
Secondary phone: 800.535.3425
Fax: 215.564.6245
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Marlton, NJ

40 Lake Center, 401 NJ-73, Suite 130
Marlton, NJ 08053
Phone: 856.874.4443
Secondary phone: 888.241.7424
Fax: 856.874.0133
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Yardley, PA

777 Township Line Road, Suite 120
Yardley, PA 19067
Phone: 267.907.9600
Fax: 267.907.9659
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

New York, NY

5 Pennsylvania Plaza 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: 800.535.3425
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Bridgeton, NJ

78 W Broad St
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
Phone: 856.874.4443
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer