INVESTORS SAVINGS BANK VS. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL. A-0404-10T2

INVESTORS SAVINGS BANK VS. KEYBANK NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, ET AL.  A-0404-10T2

 Under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, a refinancing

mortgagee is ordinarily entitled to the same priority as the

original mortgagee even though it negligently failed to discover

the lien of an intervening judgment creditor before closing. 03-12-12

IN RE A PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF THE COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, REORGANIZATION PLAN 1-2011 A-6301-10T

IN RE A PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE COUNCIL ON

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFER OF

THE FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF THE COUNCIL ON

AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY

AFFAIRS, REORGANIZATION PLAN 1-2011

 A-6301-10T4

 The issue raised in this appeal is whether, pursuant to the

Executive Reorganization Act of 1969, N.J.S.A. 52:14C-1 to -11

(Reorganization Act), a Governor may abolish an independent

agency created by the Legislature that is "in but not of" a

department of the Executive Branch.  As applied here, the

narrower issue is whether respondent Governor Chris Christie

may, under the terms of the Reorganization Act, "abolish" the

Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), an independent agency

created by the Fair Housing Act, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-301 to -329

(FHA), and transfer the duties, responsibilities and obligations

of that agency to the sole authority of the Commissioner of the

Department of Community Affairs (DCA).

 Strictly construing the Reorganization Act, we conclude

that it does not grant the Governor the power to abolish a

legislatively created, representative, independent authority

that is "in but not of" the Executive Branch or any department

in that branch of the government.  Applying this rule here, we

determine that the Governor exceeded his authority under the

Reorganization Act in abolishing COAH.  Accordingly, we reverse. 03-08-12

CHARLES CAMERON, ET AL. VS. ROY B. EWING A-3628-10T2

CHARLES CAMERON, ET AL. VS. ROY B. EWING

 A-3628-10T2

In this appeal, we address the novel issue whether the

stream of payments due a homeowner under a home equity

conversion mortgage, also known as a reverse mortgage, is

subject to execution and garnishment for the benefit of judgment

creditors of the homeowner.  We conclude the mortgagee's

obligation to make monthly payments to defendant, the judgment

debtor, is properly construed to be a "debt" against which

plaintiffs, the judgment creditors, may obtain an order

directing execution and garnishment under N.J.S.A. 2A:17-50 and

-63 and Rule 4:59-1(c).  We also find the reverse mortgage

payments are "rights and credits" subject to an order for

installment payments by the judgment debtor.  N.J.S.A. 2A:17-64. 

We remand for the court to determine the percentage of the

reverse mortgage payments properly subject to execution. 

N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56. 03-08-12

TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN VS. FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PBA TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN VS. FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PBA LOCAL 154 SUPERVISORY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION A-2313-10T1/A-2822-10T1

TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN VS. FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PBA 

TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN VS. FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PBA 

  LOCAL 154 SUPERVISORY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 

  A-2313-10T1/A-2822-10T1 

We review two decisions issued by the Public Employment 

Relations Commission (PERC) regarding whether proposed patrol 

shift schedule modifications were mandatorily negotiable as 

intimately affecting employees' working conditions or were non- 

negotiable as falling within the Township's managerial 

prerogative.  

Although we agree the CNAs under review granted the 

Township managerial latitude to schedule police shifts "as 

needed[,]" we reject the expansive reading of this phrase to 

support the Township's position the shift modifications merely 

"implement[ed] a provision of the contract which had been 

extensively bargained for by the parties."  Rather, the changes 

mandated officers work more hours without concomitant 

compensation, an alteration of the core of the CNAs' provisions. 

  We distinguished the holding of our opinion in In re 

Morris County Sheriff's Office v. Morris Cnty. Policemen's 

Benev. Ass'n, Local 298, 418 N.J. Super. 64, 75-76 (App. Div. 

2011), noting a desire to achieve thrift cannot sustain the 

adoption of a policy abrogating the Township's binding 

contractual obligations to its law enforcement employees.03-08-12

GROW COMPANY, INC. VS. DILIP CHOKSHI, ET AL. A-0026-10T4

GROW COMPANY, INC. VS. DILIP CHOKSHI, ET AL.

 A-0026-10T4

In this appeal, the court reviewed the sufficiency of the

judge's findings in awarding attorney's fees.  Ascertaining a

reasonable fee was complicated because the judge had previously

determined that the contractual provision upon which the award

was based only authorized fee-shifting with regard to certain

discrete aspects of this multi-faceted suit.  To expeditiously

resolve the issue, the judge appointed an expert, who developed

a methodology in which, among other things, a percentage was

assigned to each task and then applied in light of the length of

each written document.  Although the judge recognized the

expert's approach was unusual, the judge adopted it while

further discounting the award derived by the expert based upon

the judge's feel of the case developed during the lengthy

nonjury trial.  The court -- recognizing that no precise formula

is required -- affirmed the award because the expert's

methodology was sufficiently illuminating and also subjected to

the judge's own knowledge and understanding of the case and, in

particular, the performance of prevailing counsel during the

course of the litigation. 03-07-12

HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY VS. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. A-2232-09T3

HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY VS. THE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL.

 A-2232-09T3

In this appeal, we conclude that the Premium Tax Cap

Statute, N.J.S.A. 54:18A-6, as amended by Assembly Bill A4401

(A4401), L. 2005, c. 128, is not unconstitutional as a denial of

due process or equal protection, a bill of attainder, or special

legislation.  By its terms, A4401 eliminated the tax cap on

premiums received by health service corporations (HSCs) when at

all relevant times, plaintiff Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of

New Jersey was the only HSC in New Jersey.  Among its other

claims, plaintiff charged that it was singled out for

retaliation after it refused to convert to for-profit status.  

  We determine that A4401 was rationally related to the

legislative goals of raising revenue to reduce a budget deficit

as well as to eliminate a loophole in the tax law whereby HSCs

had a lower effective tax rate than other health insurance

carriers.  We further conclude that plaintiff's claim of

retaliation is likewise without merit. 

 The Tax Court opinion is reported at 25 N.J. Tax 290 (Tax

Ct. 2009). 03-07-12

Thomas F. Fox v. Jean Millman (A-39/40-10; 066564

Thomas F. Fox v. Jean Millman (A-39/40-10; 066564)

 The equitable doctrine of laches cannot be utilized to

bar an action at law that was commenced within the

time constraints of an applicable statute of

limitations. 6-20-12