NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
ISSUES DECISION IN:
Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Association

In a groundbreaking decision, a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court held that a homeowner’s association did not violate the New Jersey State Constitution by adopting and enforcing reasonable rules and regulations.

Several residents of the Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Association formed a committee to challenge several rules set forth by the Board of Directors. The first rule limited residents to one (political) sign per lawn and one sign per window of each residence, and forbade the posting of signs on utility poles and lawns. The second rule involved the use of the community room. The Association charged a rental fee and required the renter to provide a certificate of insurance naming the Association as the insured. The third rule involved a claim of denial of equal access to the Association’s monthly newspaper, which was delivered to all Twin Rivers residents but not to the general public. The committee sought to have equal access to the pages of the newsletter by all members of the Association.

The Court first noted that although under federal law there had to be “state action” to impose constitutional rights on private parties, the New Jersey Court has imposed constitutional standards on the owners of private property. In the Twin Rivers case, however, the Court balanced the constitutional right of freedom of expression and right to access versus the Association’s right to adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations.

The Court upheld the Association’s rules and regulations based upon the fact that 1) the Association property was primarily used for a private residential purpose; 2) there was only a limited public use of the Association property; and 3) the residents’ expressional activities were not unreasonably restricted, and the residents knew when they entered into their contractual relationship with the Association that they would be subject to reasonable rules and regulations. This contractual relationship was formalized in covenants that were referenced in all deeds signed by the homeowners when they purchased their properties.

The Court also held that homeowner associations did not have the unfettered right to impose rules and regulations without some restrictions. In the Twin Rivers case, the Court found that the minor restrictions on homeowners’ expressional activities were not unreasonable or oppressive. Community association residents have protections other than constitutional rights against arbitrary and unreasonable rules sought to be enforced by community associations. Additionally, the Court advised that its holding in the Twin Rivers case did not mean that residents of a homeowners’ association could never constitutionally challenge an association’s policy that unreasonably infringes upon their free speech rights.

For any questions concerning the Twin Rivers decision, please contact Loren Rosenberg Lightman, Esq. at 732-462-7170.