Matthew MacFarlane v. Society Hill at University Heights Condominium Association II, Inc.

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: December 14, 2023
• Docket: A-3908-21
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3908-21

MATTHEW MACFARLANE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SOCIETY HILL AT UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION II, INC.,

Defendant-Respondent. ______________________________

Submitted November 8, 2023 – Decided December 14, 2023

Before Judges Haas and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-1125-22.

Matthew MacFarlane, appellant pro se.

Kaufman Dolowich, LLP, attorneys for respondent (David J. Gittines, Christian M. Scheuerman, and Jonathan R. Stuckel, on the briefs).

PER CURIAM Self-represented plaintiff, Matthew MacFarlane, appeals from a July 5,

2022, Law Division order dismissing with prejudice his complaint against

defendant Society Hill at University Heights Condominium Association II, Inc.

(Association). Upon discovering that the dismissal order was entered in error,

the trial judge vacated the order on January 30, 2023, and reinstated the

complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

By way of background, plaintiff is a unit owner at Society Hill at

University Heights condominium complex in Newark and a member of the

Association. The Association's October 20, 2020, annual board election resulted

in the filing of plaintiff's first complaint against the Association. In the

complaint, plaintiff sought to void the election, alleging that the Association's

redaction of his biography submitted in support of his candidacy for election to

the Board constituted an unlawful act. After the trial judge denied plaintiff's

request for injunctive relief, granted defendant's motion to compel alternative

dispute resolution (ADR), and dismissed plaintiff's complaint without prejudice

to allow the parties to complete ADR, plaintiff appealed. We affirmed in an

unpublished decision, discerning no abuse of discretion in the judge's denial of

injunctive relief and determining that the parties were required to complete ADR

A-3908-21 2 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 46:8B-14(k). MacFarlane v. Soc'y Hill at University

Heights Condo. Ass'n II, No. A-2792-20 (App. Div. July 6, 2022).

On February 16, 2022, plaintiff filed a second complaint and order to show

cause against the Association, which is the subject of this appeal. In the second

complaint, plaintiff alleged the Association failed to abide by its governing

documents by not holding open meetings since the October 20, 2020, election,

by entering into contracts on behalf of the Association without authorization,

and by providing plaintiff with incomplete meeting minutes and financial

records in response to his repeated requests. In the order to show cause, plaintiff

sought an order directing "the production of minutes and financial records,"

"[v]oiding all contracts entered after October 20, 2020," and requiring the

Association "to hold an annual election."

The Association moved to dismiss the complaint and order to show cause

on the ground that the relief sought was the same relief sought in the first

complaint, which was then pending appeal. On May 6, 2022, the judge

conducted oral argument on defendant's motion and rendered an oral opinion

denying the Association's motion to dismiss the complaint. The judge explained

that the prior lawsuit sought "to void the results of the October 20, 2020,

election" but the present lawsuit seeks to "void[] all contracts entered after [the]

A-3908-21 3 October 20[], 2020 [election]" and seeks "the production of the minutes and the

financial records." Thus, the judge concluded "this lawsuit is different than the

prior lawsuit." Turning to the order to show cause, the judge ordered the

Association to turn over to plaintiff all contracts and financial records since

October 2020 so that the "case can proceed in the normal course." The judge

denied all other relief requested by plaintiff and entered an order on May 9,

2022, memorializing his oral decision.

On July 5, 2022, the judge mistakenly entered an order dismissing with

prejudice plaintiff's complaint and order to show cause. Upon discovering the

error, on January 30, 2023, the judge entered an order vacating the July 5, 2022,

order1 "because it was entered in error," and restoring the case to the active

calendar. On August 18, 2022, prior to the entry of the January 30, 2023, order,

plaintiff filed a notice of appeal challenging the July 5, 2022, dismissal order.

On appeal, plaintiff argues the judge dismissed the case with prejudice "without

oral or written explanation" in "direct contradiction with Rule 1:7-4(a)."

Plaintiff also seeks the amendment of the May 9, 2022, order, to require the

1 The order mistakenly refers to the July 5, 2022, order as the July 7, 2022, order, a misnomer adopted by the parties. A-3908-21 4 Association "to provide minutes for all open meetings held after September

2018."

However, with the reinstatement of plaintiff's complaint, the issue raised

on appeal is now moot. "Courts normally will not decide issues when a

controversy no longer exists, and the disputed issues have become moot."

Betancourt v. Trinitas Hosp., 415 N.J. Super. 301, 311 (App. Div. 2010). "A

case is technically moot when the original issue presented has been resolved, at

least concerning the parties who initiated the litigation." Ibid. (quoting DeVesa

v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 428 (1993) (Pollock, J., concurring)). Stated

differently, "an issue is moot when the decision sought in a matter, when

rendered, can have no practical effect on the existing controversy." Greenfield

v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

What's more, because the July 5, 2022, dismissal order was vacated, there

is no final order subject to appellate review. Therefore, plaintiff's appeal of the

May 9, 2022, order is interlocutory in nature. "[O]ur judicial system recognizes

that, with very few exceptions, only an order that finally adjudicates all issues

as to all parties is a final order and that an interlocutory appeal is permitted only

by leave of our appellate courts." Grow Co. v. Chokshi, 403 N.J. Super. 443,

A-3908-21 5 457-58 (App. Div. 2008) (footnote omitted) (citing R. 2:2-3). "Interlocutory

review is 'highly discretionary' and is to be 'exercised only sparingly,' because

of the strong policy 'that favors an uninterrupted proceeding at the trial level

with a single and complete review.'" Id. at 461 (citations omitted) (first quoting

State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 205 (1985); and then quoting S.N. Golden Ests.,

Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 317 N.J. Super. 82, 88 (App. Div. 1998)). This case is

not the type of exceptional case that warrants interlocutory review.

Appeal Dismissed.

A-3908-21 6