New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act Can Create Personal Exposure for Contractors

In two recent decisions, New Jersey’s Appellate Division re-affirmed individuals acting within the scope of their employment can be personally liable under the State’s Consumer Fraud Act (the “CFA”), as well as related regulations governing home improvements, provided they actively participated in the consumer fraud. Lanza v. Secret Gardens, No. A-2613-07T22613-07T2 (App. Div. October 14, 2008) and Anne Milgram v. Comfort Direct, Inc. and Kevin Dyevich, A-0360-07T20360-07T2 (App. Div. October 28, 2008). The plaintiff in Lanza had hired the defendant, Secret Gardens Landscaping, Inc. (“SGL”), to perform remodeling and landscaping work on her property. After completion of the project, plaintiff filed suit against SGL, and SGL’s president and CEO, claiming they had violated the CFA. In reversing the trial court’s decision to dismiss the claims against SGL’s principal, the Appellate Division held there was undisputed evidence the principal, who had prepared the contract, supervised the work, and discussed change orders with the plaintiff, had participated personally in the alleged violations of the CFA, which were committed in connection with the execution and performance of the contract. Based upon those facts, the principal could be liable for any violation of the CFA in which he participated personally.

Placed more firmly in the construction context, these decisions subject a principal to the harsh penalties of the CFA. If the court finds the principal was involved in committing a consumer fraud, it will permit the aggrieved consumer to pursue the assets of the individual principal and those of the company.

What Constitutes a Consumer Fraud Act Violation?
The general standard for a CFA violation is “unconscionable commercial conduct,” which can include affirmative acts and intentional omissions. While there are no bright line rules as to what constitutes unconscionable commercial conduct in a new construction case, courts have held that the substitution of building materials inferior to those specified in the contract and even severe construction defects can constitute CFA violations. Violations of home improvement regulations, which are applicable to everything from minor improvements to significant renovations, are more clearly defined. A violation can include the failure to obtain a signed contract for the work from the property owner, the failure to specify start and end-dates in the contract, and misrepresentations regarding the quality of materials. Notably, the term “consumer” is broadly defined under the CFA and applies to businesses as well as consumers. As such, both residential and commercial projects can be subject to the CFA’s requirements.

Why I Should Care?
The CFA, which was implemented to protect the State’s consumers and punish those engaging in improper commercial practices, mandates the implementation of severe remedies in the event a CFA violation is found to exist. A consumer who can demonstrate it suffered a loss as a result of “unconscionable” conduct is entitled to recover treble damages and counsel fees. In the context of home improvement regulations, New Jersey’s courts have held that even if a consumer was not damaged by a violation of the regulations, the consumer is still entitled to recover its attorney’s fees. As a result, CFA violations can lead to significant exposure, both for the business and the individual -- with what might otherwise be viewed as a minor problem exploding into a major monetary loss.

How Can I Protect Myself?
Although it sounds obvious, the best way to protect yourself from CFA liability is to communicate frequently, openly, and honestly with the owner about the project’s progress and any issues that may arise. If a material specified in the contract is unavailable, do not simply switch the material out for something that may or may not be deemed by the owner or, ultimately, a court to be its equivalent. Instead, advise the owner and have it authorize the substitution in a change order. Avoid overstating the qualities of your products or services and make sure your contracts comply with regulations by having an attorney review them or familiarizing yourself with the regulations’ specific requirements.
 

Can Towns Make Real Estate Developers Set Aside Open Space in Their Projects?

Real estate developers in New Jersey often face a myriad of state and local regulations under which their development activities must comply. The Appellate Division issued a ruling in two lawsuits brought by builders associations against two New Jersey municipalities which should give developers some welcome relief.


In May 2003, Jackson Township passed an ordinance requiring a minimum of 10% to 40% of a parcel contemplated for development, depending on the zoning district in which it was located, be reserved as open space, with a minimum of 50% of such open space consisting of land which could be used for recreational use.


Jackson Township revised these requirements in 2006 by requiring all residential developments provide 12.5 acres of land per thousand projected residents of the development for recreational purposes subject to certain additional specified standards. If a developer could not satisfy these requirements, or if the planning board agreed to a developer’s request, a developer could make a cash contribution in lieu of compliance with these requirements by contributing to so-called “off-tract recreational improvements.” Further, a developer was required to pay its “fair share” for off-site open space and/or recreational land and improvements as a condition of subdivision or site plan approval.


The New Jersey Shore Builders Association challenged the enforceability of these ordinances. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the builders association, finding these ordinances to be ultra vires and unenforceable since the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) does not give municipalities the right to require on-site dedications of open space (with the exception of planned unit developments, planned unit residential developments and residential clusters) unless the municipality compensates the developer for the portion of the property set aside as open space.


In Egg Harbor Township, ordinances similar to the Jackson Township ordinances were already in place. Residential developers were required to set aside one-half of an acre for recreation and open space for each one thousand persons expected to reside in a proposed development. The Egg Harbor Planning Board had discretion to accept a cash payment in lieu of compliance with the recreational facilities and open space requirements if it determined that “both the area local to the development and Egg Harbor Township’s park and recreation needs would be better served by an agreed cash bequest to the designated parks and recreation budget.”


In addition, developers were required to install recreational facilities in all residential developments requiring those facilities, “on the land that has been set aside for recreational purposes” (such as playgrounds, tennis and basketball courts), based on the number of dwelling units in a development. In lieu of installing these facilities, a developer could, at its option, make a cash contribution to the Township’s parks and recreation budget.


In 2004, Egg Harbor Township passed a new ordinance giving the Township the option to require an off-tract assessment and revising the formula used for determining the recreational facilities in a residential development. Later that year, another new ordinance granted developers the option in designated zoning districts to post such assessments if the developer determined “that the on-site construction of active recreation facilities and/or provision of open space for passive recreation would result in a loss of potential dwelling units on the subject parcel.”


In like fashion to the Builders Association, The Builders League of South Jersey challenged enforcement of the Egg Harbor ordinances; however, the trial court in this action ruled completely contrary to the trial court in the Jackson Township case. The loser in each case appealed the trial court’s decision. The Appellate Division consolidated both appeals given the similarity of the issues in dispute.


In New Jersey, the MLUL is the basis upon which municipalities may control zoning, with the purpose of achieving certain goals that are specified in the statute, such as adequate open space. Both builders groups argued that the MLUL gave municipalities the authority to require dedications of common open space and recreational areas only when planned developments where the subject of the application, and did not provide for payments in lieu of set-asides. The Townships acknowledged this, but argued that the MLUL granted such authority by implication.


The court agreed with the builders groups that the MLUL, while conferring substantial powers to municipalities with regard to zoning, limited such power with respect to set-asides for recreational and open space purposes to planned developments only. The court’s ruling carefully distinguished this power under the MLUL from the more general power provided elsewhere in the MLUL allowing municipalities to impose requirements on developers to contribute toward the cost of off-site water, sewer, drainage and street improvements in lieu of on-site set-asides.
 

In light of this ruling, only time will tell whether the state legislature takes any action to close this loophole.