Real Estate & Construction Law Monitor : Real Estate & Construction Lawyer & Attorney : Cole Schotz Meisel Forman & Leonard Law Firm : NJ, Mid-Atlantic Development & Building

On September 6, 2008, in response to unprecedented economic and financial crisis and as an attempt to protect development permits that were scheduled to expire, then New Jersey Governor John Corzine signed P.L. 2008, c. 78 (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-136.1 et seq.), legislation known as the Permit Extension Act of 2008 (the “Permit Extension Act”). The Permit Extension Act extended the terms of certain governmental development permits and approvals to July 1, 2010, with up to a six-month phase-in period until January 1, 2011. Governor Corzine, as one of his last acts as Governor, signed legislation (Chapter 336, Assembly No. 4347) extending the end of the tolling period under the Permit Extension Act from July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012.

The primary goal of the Permit Extension Act is to promote development once the economy has strengthened and prevent the abandonment of approved projects and activities. The Permit Extension Act tolls the running of governmental development permits and approvals obtained during the period from January 1, 2007 through July 1, 2010, with up to a six-month phase-in period until January 1, 2011, thus amounting to a maximum four-year permit extension period.

The Permit Extension Act is a compromise between developers and community activists, including environmentalists. As such, it excludes the following categories from eligibility for extension:

1. Permits and approvals issued by the US government or any permit or approval with a duration or fixed expiration date determined by a federal law or regulation;
2. Approvals in “environmentally sensitive areas”;
3. Permits or approvals issued pursuant to the “Pinelands Protection Act” if the extension would result in a violation of federal law or any state rule or regulation requiring approval of the Secretary of the Interior;
4. New Jersey Department of Transportation permits, other than right-of-way permits;
5. Flood Hazard Area Control Act permits, except where work has already commenced; and
6. Coastal centers pursuant to the “Coastal Area Facility Review Act” where (a) an application for plan endorsement was not submitted to the State Planning Commission as of March 15, 2007, and (b) was not in compliance with the Coastal Zoning Management Rules.

The Permit Extension Act does not prohibit the granting of additional permit extensions otherwise provided for under law when its tolling period expires. In addition, the Permit Extension Act does not affect any administrative consent orders issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and in effect during the extension period, nor does it extend any approval in connection with a resource recovery facility.

Should you have any questions with regard to the applicability of the Permit Extension Act to any existing project, permits, or approvals, please contact an attorney knowledgeable with New Jersey laws and the Permit Extension Act.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The 2010 Property Tax Environment is Ripe for Appeals and Represents a Real Opportunity for Significant Tax:

With measurable declines in the real estate market, evidenced, by rising vacancy and falling rental rates, the pursuit of a real property tax appeal has never been more compelling. In fact, municipalities are already bracing themselves for what is expected to be a tsunami of tax appeal filings. Last year, unprecedented levels of appeals were filed and towns have been left scrambling since. Adjustments to assessment levels were largely in order for 2009 and will continue to be justified in the present tax year. Towns are aware that their property assessments are not in line with the current economic climate and declining property values. It is therefore expected that significant adjustments are either going to occur voluntarily, through compromise, or involuntarily, by virtue of the mandates of Tax Court judgments. Consequently, for those who take action, it is likely that a reduction in assessment and a resulting reduction in taxes will be achieved.

The only way to take advantage of the opportunity to realize significant tax savings and improve one’s bottom line is to pursue a timely filed tax appeal. The 2010 tax appeal filing deadline is April 1, 2010 so there is little time to waste.

The first step is for a property owner or a tenant, responsible for a majority of the property tax obligation, to review the Property Tax Assessment Notice (post card), which will be mailed to taxpayers by the towns in the next few weeks. This post card identifies the property tax assessment imposed upon the property for 2010.

This assessment number is, however, deceptive, as it does not, without proper adjustment, tell the owner the true value at which the town has assessed the property. Many taxpayers are falsely lulled into believing that their property assessment equals true value and is therefore correct. This error could be an expensive mistake.

Towns employ what is called an average or ”equalization” ratio in order to convert the property tax assessment to the value (the so-called “equalization value”). Only by comparing this adjusted assessment number (“equalization value”) to the actual value of the property, may a proper analysis be undertaken to determine whether an appeal has merit. Taxpayers who take no action are thus often stuck with paying an ever-increasing tax bill.

Once the Property Tax Assessment card is reviewed, a property owner should therefore quickly move to schedule an appointment with an attorney experienced in this area in order to determine the merits of a possible appeal. By taking this simple, but important step, a property owner can ensure that it is paying only its fair share of the municipal real property tax burden. This is where the involvement of an experienced attorney can be of tremendous help. With our experience and relationships with professional appraisers, we are able to perform, at no cost to you, a preliminary analysis to determine if an appeal is warranted. If so, the preparation and filing of a tax appeal complaint will be recommended and pursued at your election.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The creditors’ rights exclusion under a title insurance policy is intended to make clear that a title insurance policy does not provide protection for post-policy challenges to the insured title or to the validity, enforceability, or priority of the lien of the insured mortgage arising solely out of the insured transaction (not one in the past chain of title), whereby the transfer to the insured owner or lender of its interest in the land is determined to be a fraudulent transfer or conveyance, or a preferential transfer, under either state or federal law. With respect to the loan policy only, the creditors’ rights exclusion also confirms that no protection is provided to the insured lender if a challenge is made to the priority of the lien of the insured mortgage based on the bankruptcy doctrine of equitable subordination.

Over the past decade, the request by owners and lenders to delete the creditors’ rights exclusion under a title insurance policy has become standard practice. In 2004, ALTA adopted Endorsement Form 21, which insures against loss under an owner’s or loan policy because of the occurrence, on or before the date of the policy, of a fraudulent transfer or preference under federal bankruptcy law or state insolvency or creditors’ rights laws. It also confirms that the title insurer will pay all costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees to defend the insured against such claims. It expressly excludes coverage for such loss, however, if the insured knew that the transfer was fraudulent or was not a purchaser in good faith. The benefit of this endorsement is that it expressly provides affirmative coverage for creditors’ rights matters.

The ALTA 2006 Loan Policy does give some limited coverage with respect to preferences for the insured mortgage itself. Covered Risk, Section 13(a) of the ALTA 2006 Loan Policy insures against “The invalidity, unenforceability, lack of priority, or avoidance of the lien of the Insured Mortgage” resulting from a prior transfer constituting a fraudulent or preferential transfer, but does not cover that risk for the “transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage.” Exclusion 6 of the ALTA 2006 Loan Policy makes it clear that it only applies to those creditors rights’ issues affecting “the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage” that are not stated in Covered Risk 13(b). Lender’s generally will not find comfort with this limited protection against creditor’s rights matters from prior transactions and require affirmative coverage against the invalidity, unenforceability, lack of priority, or avoidance of the lien of the insured mortgage. To fill the “gap” created by Covered Risk 13(a) and Exclusion 6, when available the title company will issue affirmative coverage under a Creditors’ Rights Endorsement with respect to the transaction.

Creditors’ rights coverage places additional risk on the title insurer and therefore an additional risk premium for the endorsement is required. Normally, in a deed-in-lieu transaction, reasonably equivalent value will have been given for the deed because the value of the property will have been established by appraisal (supplied to the title insurer) to be less than the amount of the outstanding mortgage debt. Where a creditors' rights issue has been identified because a transfer is being made without the transferor receiving reasonably equivalent value, the title insurer is required to conduct non-title-related due diligence with respect to underwriting the transaction, including an analysis of the transferor’s business and financial statements; its capitalization both before and after the transfer; the amount of secured and unsecured credit obtained by the transferor both before and after the transfer; and a determination of whether the delivery of the deed in lieu of foreclosure will render the borrower insolvent. If the title insurer is willing to issue creditors’ rights coverage in such a situation, it may need to charge a significant additional risk premium to cover the potential liability. In addition, the title company may require that an independent third party with a demonstrated and substantial net worth indemnify the title insurer for the costs of defending an action based on a creditors’ rights defense.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link