BORDEN, VS. CADLES OF GRASSY MEADOWS

BORDEN, ET AL. VS. CADLES OF GRASSY MEADOWS
II, LLC, ET AL. A-2386-08T1 4-5-10

Defendant was the assignee of a judgment in favor of the
Howard Savings Bank (the Howard) and its initial assignee, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Defendant
appealed from a judgment extinguishing and discharging a
judgment in a foreclosure action on a commercial mortgage note
and guaranties entered in favor of the Howard and the FDIC.
Plaintiffs were two of the guarantors of the note against whom
the summary judgment was entered. The judge vacated the summary
judgment because no deficiency hearing was sought by the Howard
or the FDIC after a final judgment of foreclosure was entered
and the mortgaged property was sold at a sheriff's sale. Upon
examination of how New Jersey courts have applied FMV credits to
commercial notes and mortgages, we reverse and reinstate the
summary judgment because the Howard and the FDIC had no duty to
trigger a deficiency hearing after the sale of the property and
the burden to seek a hearing rested on plainttimely objection to the sheriff's sale.

Hermes Reyes, et al. v. Harry C. Egner, et al. (A-90-08)

Hermes Reyes, et al. v. Harry C. Egner, et al.
(A-90-08)
4-8-10

The members of the Supreme Court being equally
divided, the judgment of the Appellate Division is
affirmed. The Hopkins duty of care to warn of any
reasonably discoverable dangerous condition in the
home does not extend to a real estate agent
facilitating a short-term lease of a summer rental.

In re: Petition for Referendum of the City of Trenton Ordinance 09-0

In re: Petition for Referendum of the City of Trenton
Ordinance 09-02 4-6-10

The relevant provision of the Municipal Utilities Law,
N.J.S.A. 40:62-3.1, eliminates only the mandatory
requirement of a referendum; it does not affect the
citizens’ right to contest an ordinance as provided by
the Faulkner Act. Ordinance 09-02 of the City of
Trenton, which authorizes the sale of a municipal
water utility system to a private entity, must be
submitted to the voters.

Marina Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc. (A-16-09)

Marina Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc. (A-16-09) 3-30-10

Under the circumstances, Stengart could reasonably
expect that e-mail communications with her lawyer
through her personal, password-protected, web-based
e-mail account would remain private, and that sending
and receiving them using a company laptop did not
eliminate the attorney-client privilege that protected
them. By reading e-mails that were at least arguably
privileged and failing to promptly notify Stengart
about them, Loving Care’s counsel violated RPC 4.4(b).

Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Township of Berkeley Heights (A-95-08

Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Township of Berkeley
Heights (A-95-08) 3-17-10

Although the municipality’s dismissal motion was not
untimely, the Court reverses the appellate panel’s
judgment that that tax appeal be dismissed in its
entirety and remands to the Tax Court for a
reasonableness hearing consistent with the Court’s
holding in Ocean Pines, Ltd. V. Borough of Point
Pleasant.