News & Resources - Page 3 of 45 - Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC

Ansell.Law Obtains Huge NJ Supreme Court Victory for Condo Association In The Face of a Former Board Member Seeking Indemnification and Attorney’s Fees for a Lawsuit He Started

Ansell Grimm July 22, 2024

How To Interpret Indemnification Clauses As Well As Bylaws Provisions

Those who serve on condominium or community association boards must have indemnification with respect to lawsuits filed against them personally related to their board service. Most association bylaws contain provisions that provide such protections. However, most of those provisions are almost universally drafted as shields for board members, not as a vehicle for recovering attorney’s fees a board member incurs in a lawsuit they file against the board.

Such provisions were the subject of a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision, Patrick Boyle v. Carol Huff, et al. In Boyle, Ansell.Law attorneys represented certain members of Ocean Club Condominium’s board, each of whom had been sued by Patrick Boyle. Ansell.Law attorneys also represented Ocean Club itself against Boyle’s attempt to have Ocean Club reimburse the attorney’s fees he incurred to secure reinstatement to the board. The Court’s ruling in Boyle v. Huff saved the condominium from a judgment that could have exceeded $750,000.00. The ruling also highlighted how indemnification-related provisions should be both amended and interpreted.

Case Background

Patrick Boyle, a unit owner of the Ocean Club Condominium in Atlantic City, was removed from the condominium board by the board’s other members, relying on new government regulations. Boyle successfully challenged his removal in court. He also sought indemnification for his attorney’s fees and costs incurred in order to make that challenge, relying upon the indemnification provision in the association’s bylaws.

That provision reads, in relevant part, as follows:

The Trustees and officers shall not be liable to the Unit Owners for any mistake of judgment, negligence or otherwise, except for their own individual willful misconduct or bad faith. The Association shall indemnify every Trustee and officer. . . against all loss, costs and expenses, including counsel fees, reasonably incurred by him in connection with any action, suit, or proceeding to which he may be a party by reason of his being or having been a Trustee or officer of the Association except as to matters as to which he shall be finally adjudged in such action, suit or proceeding to be liable for willful misconduct or bad faith.

The trial court interpreted that provision as allowing for Boyle’s recovery even though his fees and costs were incurred solely because of a lawsuit that he, himself, commenced and pursued. The appellate court affirmed, and on behalf of the association, Ansell.Law sought review by New Jersey’s Supreme Court.

Ambiguous Indemnity Provisions Exclude Coverage for First-Party Claims

The fundamental issue before the court was whether an indemnification provision provides for the recovery of attorneys’ fees in a first-party claim, such as here, where Boyle, the party to be indemnified, filed a claim against Ocean Club, the indemnifying party – as opposed to a lawsuit filed by a third party, like a unit owner suing Boyle agreeing to indemnify — as opposed to a claim involving a third party, where a unit owner sues Boyle with respect to his role as an Ocean Club trustee.

In Justice Noriega’s unanimous decision, the Court reversed the appellate court. It held that the indemnification provision at issue was ambiguous as to first-party claims. Under rules of contract construction, ambiguities in indemnification provisions must be strictly construed against the indemnitee (Boyle). Accordingly, the Court held that “Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Appellate Division, we cannot presume first-party coverage in the absence of language precluding it; rather, there must be affirmative indicia of the intent to indemnify to overcome the presumption that parties will each pay their own way.”

The Court concluded that “indemnification may also apply to first-party claims if that is the clear intent of the parties as expressed by their deliberate word choices when drafting contracts.” (emphasis added) It stated further that “Those word choices will govern whether an indemnification provision supports a first-or third-party claim for damages.”

Key Takeaways for Community Association Boards

Strict Construction Against Indemnitee: Ambiguous indemnification clauses will be construed strictly against the party seeking indemnification. This means that an indemnification clause will cover first-party claims only if the provision explicitly states so.
Importance of Clear Language: An indemnification provision must be clear and explicit. Any association seeking to allow board members to enjoy indemnification vis-à-vis lawsuits they start must amend their bylaws with specific language.
Limitation to Third-Party Claims: Absent explicit language otherwise, an indemnification clause will likely be limited to third-party claims, not disputes between trustees and the association itself. This aligns with the traditional view that indemnification is typically about third-party actions.

The victory obtained by Ansell.Law in this case highlights the importance of one’s bylaws’ specific text, especially the provisions forced upon an association by a developer via that association’s original bylaws (as was the case here). Associations should work with counsel to ensure language clearly reflects a community’s needs and expectations.

For more information or assistance in reviewing and updating your association’s bylaws, contact Nicole D. Miller in the firm’s Community Association Law practice group.

Outnumbered or Outrageous: Understanding Shareholder Oppression in New Jersey

Ansell Grimm July 8, 2024

By Seth M. Rosenstein

The concept of majority rule is not only a defining characteristic of democracy but also the way decisions are made in a wide range of contexts every day. No matter the issue – whether choosing between candidates for public office or deciding what toppings to put on a pizza, those on the winning side will be happy with the result, while those in the minority may be disappointed or even angry about the outcome. This same dynamic applies in closely held New Jersey corporations every time shareholders have to make decisions involving their company.

Being a minority shareholder (i.e., one who owns less than half of a company’s voting shares or otherwise does not control the business’s operations) often means your views and preferences, while perhaps considered by the majority, will ultimately be set aside after votes are tallied.

While being in the minority may be undesirable, it isn’t inherently unfair. If agreed-upon rules are followed, and if votes and decisions are made in good faith and not with the intent or effect of harming minority shareholders or infringing upon their rights, that is just the way the chips fall. But when majority shareholders abuse their power and act in inappropriate, illegal, or “oppressive” ways, most jurisdictions, including New Jersey, provide minority shareholders with mechanisms to protect and remedies to vindicate their rights and shield themselves and the corporation from majority misconduct.

Understanding the difference between shareholder oppression and the simple frustration that comes with being outvoted can spare a company and its owners from disruptive and destructive litigation that can pose an existential threat to the business’ ongoing viability.

What Is Shareholder Oppression in New Jersey?

Under Section 14A:12-7(c) of the New Jersey Business Corporation Act (the “Act”), minority shareholder oppression in a closely held corporation (defined in that section as one with 25 or fewer shareholders) sufficient to justify court intervention occurs when the directors or those in control have acted “oppressively or unfairly toward one or more minority shareholders in their capacities as shareholders, directors, officers, or employees.”

Since the statute does not define the terms “oppressively” or “unfairly,” it is left to New Jersey courts to determine what exactly constitutes conduct that falls within those two terms. The seminal case in this regard is the 1993 New Jersey Supreme Court decision in Brenner v. Berkowitz. After noting that “Mere disagreement or discord between the shareholders is not sufficient for a violation of” Section 14A:12-7(c), the Court stated that “oppression has been defined as frustrating a shareholder’s reasonable expectations.”

“In determining whether a shareholder’s expectations are reasonable and whether the corporation or controlling shareholders or directors unreasonably thwarted them,” the Court went on to say that “courts should consider even non-monetary expectations of the shareholder.” In other words, oppression is not simply a matter of dollars and cents and can constitute a wide range of actions that can be “burdensome, harsh, or wrongful” to the minority shareholders.

Actions That Can Constitute Shareholder Oppression

Such actions that could warrant retaining legal counsel and triggering court intervention may include:

Forcing a minority shareholder to sell their shares at unfairly low prices.
Freezing out a shareholder, making their shares essentially worthless through corporate restructuring.
Locking a shareholder out of the company’s property.
Refusing to allow a shareholder to inspect the company’s books and business records.
Terminating a minority shareholder’s employment.
Creating a redemption plan for stock that only favors the majority shareholders.
Engaging in transaction(s) that cuts minority shareholders out of fair compensation.
Refusing to notify shareholders of official shareholder meetings.
Trying to alter minority shareholder terms to reduce their rights.
Falsifying company records or books.
Paying for personal expenses of majority shareholders with corporate funds.

Remedies for Shareholder Oppression

If a court determines that a majority shareholder is acting oppressively towards a minority shareholder in a closely held corporation, the Act provides several possible remedies to protect the minority’s rights and interests, including appointing a custodian or a provisional director to manage the corporation’s affairs, ordering a sale of the corporation’s stock, or entering a judgment dissolving the corporation.

While the Brennan court noted that “Most acts of misconduct or oppression will warrant some type of remedy,” it also stated that “only the most egregious cases will warrant the drastic remedies permitted by the statute.” Outside of statutory remedies, the Court held that the Chancery Court (where such matters are brought and heard) has broad discretion under its inherent powers of equity to fashion an appropriate remedy based on the nature of the conduct and harm inflicted as well as a consideration of all the surrounding facts and circumstances.

Thus, in addition to the remedies outlined in the act, the equitable remedies that a court may order in cases of shareholder oppression include:

Canceling or altering problematic provisions of the corporation’s articles of incorporation or the bylaws.
Canceling, altering, or enjoining any resolution or other act of the corporation.
Directing or prohibiting any act of the corporation or the shareholders, directors, officers, or other persons party to the action.
Providing for the sale of all the property and franchises of the corporation to a single purchaser.
Requiring dissolution at a future date, effective only if the parties do not resolve their differences before that time.
Appointing a receiver or special fiscal agent to continue the operation of the corporation for both majority and minority until differences are resolved or until oppressive conduct ceases.
Retaining jurisdiction for the protection of minority shareholders without the appointment of a custodian, receiver, or similar official.
Ordering an accounting or ordering access to corporate records.
Enjoining continuing acts of oppressive conduct, e.g., by reducing unjustified or excessive salary or bonus payments to controlling shareholders.
Requiring the declaration of a dividend.
Permitting minority shareholders to purchase additional shares.
Rescinding a corporate act that is unfair to the minority.
The performance, prohibition, alteration, or setting aside of any action of the corporation, its shareholders, directors, or officers of or any other party to the proceedings.

If you have questions or concerns about minority shareholder oppression and how to protect your interests when it occurs, please contact Ansell Grimm & Aaron Partner Seth M. Rosenstein.

Ansell.Law Secures Motion to Dismiss Avoiding Frivolous Litigation for Firm Client

Ansell Grimm June 5, 2024

In a land use dispute where a litigious neighbor filed a complaint seeking to effectively appeal zoning permits issued for construction that has long since been completed – some for more than a decade – Litigation Department attorneys Anthony J. D’Artiglio and Brian J. Ashnault, with assistance from Land Use Department Co-Chair Jennifer S. Krimko, successfully moved to have the Complaint dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against his neighbor and the Borough of West Long Branch, asserting claims of enforcement, writ of mandamus, and violation of the plaintiff’s substantive due process rights. At its core, the Complaint alleged that four permits issued to his neighbor should not have been issued, and the work performed in conjunction with the permits exceeded what was permitted.

On behalf of the defendant neighbor, the Ansell team filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint relying on arguments including that the plaintiff was actually seeking an out-of-time appeal of the permits, not enforcement of the Ordinance as plaintiff asserted. Regardless, the Ansell team argued that such claims were long out of time under the principle of laches, even if they were considered as enforcement claims. Additionally, the Ansell Team argued that the remaining counts were deficient for various reasons warranting dismissal.

Following oral arguments, the Court issued a lengthy oral decision dismissing the Complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The Judge addressed and accepted each of the Ansell team’s grounds to dismiss the Complaint for every count. Accordingly, the frivolous litigation filed by the plaintiff designed to harass his neighbor was disposed of at its earliest stage.

Anthony is a partner and litigation team leader in the Firm’s Woodland Park office. His varied practice includes commercial lease disputes, class actions, Consumer Fraud Act claims, corporate/shareholder disputes, employment disputes, secured property actions, and creditors’ rights in bankruptcy matters.

Jennifer co-chairs the Firm’s Land Use Department. She devotes her practice to all areas relating to real estate, representing a wide variety of clients — from individuals to large developers — in all phases of governmental approvals before municipal, county, and state agencies.

Brian’s practice spans a range of commercial and civil litigation matters including condemnation, land use, commercial lease disputes, breach of contract claims, and collections.

Bradley Beach Land Use Board Approves Revised Plan for the Movie Theater

Ansell Grimm May 29, 2024

Shareholder Jennifer Krimko recently led the team in securing amended approval from the Bradley Beach Land Use Board permitting the Firm’s client to operate a theater with a café and bar in Bradley Beach. The unanimous approval granted on May 16, 2024, allows for the renovation of the existing theater building into one larger theater with 186 seats and one smaller theater room with flexible seating for up to 39 people, along with cafés and bar areas.

Krimko emphasized the advantages of the amended plan, noting that “there could be interior renovations that would be less expensive to construct, would be equally as ADA accessible, and allow the site to continue to function in the same way.” Read more in the Star News Group article.

As co-chair of the Firm’s Land Use Department, Krimko devotes her practice to all real estate matters, representing a wide variety of clients — from individuals to large developers — in all phases of governmental approvals before municipal, county, and state agencies.

David Byrne and Nicole Miller To Speak at Cooperator Expo New Jersey

Ansell Grimm May 20, 2024

Nearly 2000 attendees will soon gather at the Meadowlands for the 2024 Cooperator Expo, New Jersey’s biggest condo, HOA, and apartment expo. The one-day event is on June 5, 2024.

Partners David J. Byrne and Nicole D. Miller are slated to speak with Corner Property Management’s CEO, Tony Nardone. Their program will address unpaid assessments and running elections – two significant issues that buildings and association boards routinely encounter. The speakers will provide practical management strategies boards can implement to handle these challenges.

Ansell.Law is a proud longtime sponsor of this key industry event and is one of 250 exhibitors. This must-attend expo is geared towards property managers, board members, apartment building owners, shareholders, and real estate professionals. Elysa D. Bergenfeld, Stacey R. Patterson, Anthony J. D’Artiglio, and Jonathan D. Sherman will also be in attendance.

The attorneys in our Community Association Law practice provide dynamic, creative, and effective representation to condominiums, community associations, cooperatives, and homeowners associations. We work with clients in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Andrea B. White Obtains Qualification To Conduct Economic Mediation in Matters with Domestic Violence

Ansell Grimm May 14, 2024

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that partner Andrea B. White has been added to the New Jersey Judiciary Roster of Mediators for Economic Mediation in family matters. Specifically qualified to handle cases involving domestic violence, she is among a select group of attorneys in the state qualified by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Andrea attained accreditation after completing specialized training tailored for these cases. All mediators on the Judiciary-approved roster have undergone 40 hours of comprehensive mediation training. Those with a domestic violence designation completed additional training that enables them to facilitate Economic Mediation in matters involving Domestic Violence.

A veteran family law attorney, Andrea cultivated her practice in the highly specialized discipline of divorce, custody, parenting time, child support, alimony, and domestic violence. In recognition of her many years of volunteer service, Andrea was recently appointed an emeritus member of the NJSBA’s Family Law Executive Committee.

New Flood Disclosures Required for New Jersey Residential and Commercial Property Sales and Leases

Ansell Grimm May 8, 2024

By Melanie J. Scroble and Jonathan D. Sherman

In addition to the many representations and warranties New Jersey property owners must provide when they seek to sell or lease their property, they will now need to make specific disclosures regarding the history of and potential for flooding on their land. As of March 20, 2024, P.L. 2023, c.93 requires all New Jersey residential and commercial property owners in the state to provide detailed disclosures regarding past flooding and existing and future flood risks when entering into new leases, lease renewals, sales, or exchanges involving their property. Failure to make these disclosures in any transaction entered into after March 20th can have severe and costly consequences for sellers and landlords.

Under the new law, property owners must make these disclosures in one of two amended disclosure forms, depending on whether the transaction involves a sale or a lease.

For flooding issues, the primary responsibility of owners entering into either type of transaction involves:

Disclosing whether the property has ever experienced flood damage, water seepage, or pooled water due to a natural flood event on the property, such as heavy rainfall, coastal storm surge, tidal inundation, or river overflow.
Determining and disclosing whether any or all of the property is located wholly or partially in the Special Flood Hazard Area (“100-year floodplain”) according to FEMA’s current flood insurance rate maps for the area or whether any or all of the property located wholly or partially in a Moderate Risk Flood Hazard Area (“500-year floodplain”) according to FEMA’s current flood insurance rate maps for the area. Owners can find this information in the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Flood Risk Database.

The form for sale transactions includes additional disclosures regarding flood insurance and claims, as well as disaster flood assistance.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

For landlords, failing to disclose that the leased property is located in a FEMA Special or Moderate Risk Flood Hazard Area gives the tenant the right to terminate the lease upon learning the property is, in fact, located in one of those hazard areas. Additionally, the landlord may be held liable for any damage to a tenant’s personal property, diminished habitability of the leased premises, or limited or denied access to the leased premises due to flooding.

Similarly, a seller’s failure to make the necessary disclosures will release the buyer from its obligations under the sale contract unless and until the seller complies with the law’s disclosure requirements.

If you have questions or concerns about these new required flood disclosures, please contact Melanie Scroble or Jonathan Sherman at Ansell.Law.

After a Hard-Fought Trial, Ansell.Law’s Lawrence H. Shapiro and Kelsey M. Barber Obtain $389,000 Judgment for Stepdad After Stepson Falsely Claimed Money Was a Gift, Not a Loan as Agreed.

Ansell Grimm May 3, 2024

When a stepson attempted to take advantage of his loving stepfather’s generosity by claiming that a $389,000 loan was actually a gift he did not have to repay, Lawrence H. Shapiro and Kelsey M. Barber of the Firm’s Litigation Department successfully vindicated the stepdad, obtaining a judgment in his favor for the entire loan amount, plus interest.

The heated dispute arose after the stepdad and his wife decided to downsize and sell the family home, where the adult stepson and his college student brother lived. As the stepson and his brother needed a new place to live, the stepdad kindly offered the stepson $389,000 to purchase a townhome.

At all times, the stepfather intended the money to be a loan, an arrangement that was repeatedly acknowledged by the stepson in contemporaneous emails and text messages in which he discussed repayment plans, asked for forbearance when money was tight, and offered to forward rent payments his brother was making to pay for his share of the townhome. Notwithstanding the clear agreement and understanding of the parties, the stepson refused to sign a note and mortgage at the closing of the townhome.

The suit came about after the stepfather and mother got divorced. The stepson used the end of their marriage as an excuse to renege on his obligations by claiming the loan was, in fact, a gift.

During the two-day trial, the Ansell team was able to conclusively demonstrate that the money was a loan through the contemporaneous documentation and by completely undermining the stepson’s credibility as a witness. Accordingly, the Court entered an Order for Judgment in favor of the stepfather for the full loan amount plus interest.

Your Business is Poised for Real Growth — Is Franchising Your Business Concept a Viable Option for You?

Ansell Grimm April 29, 2024

By Roy W. Hibberd

If you are a successful small business owner, you may know the feeling. Things are going well, and your concept seems to have drawn consumer interest and found traction. Your customer base and revenues are growing, and demand is exceeding your capacity to keep pace. All signs point towards expansion and scaling up. You start to consider your options for growth, and franchising seems like an attractive way to transform and grow your business to a regional or even national brand and presence.

And while you may generally know what a franchise is – you likely patronize and drive by multiple franchised businesses every day – you have only the haziest idea of what starting and operating a franchise involves. Even less clear is whether franchising makes sense for your business model and long-term goals or whether other paths may better suit your circumstances and objectives.

While the decision as to whether, when, and how to expand your business is one that you should only make in consultation with experienced counsel, here are some basic facts and considerations about franchising that can help guide your next steps.

What Does It Mean To Franchise a Business?

You started your business as an entrepreneur, and at its core, franchising is an approach that allows other entrepreneurs to follow in your footsteps and take the laboring oar in expanding your brand’s footprint. It is a symbiotic arrangement that offers benefits for both the franchisor/parent company (you) and the franchisee (the individual or entity buying the rights to operate under your brand).

While franchising, like any business model, comes with risks and is not necessarily appropriate for every enterprise, it is a well-established and widespread arrangement. According to the International Franchise Association, there were over 800,000 individual franchise establishments in the U.S. in 2023, employing approximately 8.7 million people and producing roughly $860 billion in economic output.

When a business is franchised, the franchisor grants the franchisee the right to use its trademarks, branding, and operational procedures. This includes everything from the products or services offered to the interior decor of a retail location and marketing materials. Franchisors provide extensive support to franchisees, including training programs, operational assistance, marketing support, and access to proprietary systems and resources.

However, while the franchisee gains access to these assets, they must comply with strict standards set forth by the franchisor to maintain consistency across all locations. Franchisors exert significant influence over various aspects of the franchisee’s business operations, including pricing, product offerings, branding, marketing strategies, and quality standards.

For the franchisor, a franchise arrangement is a means to rapidly expand its brand footprint with minimal capital investment and without bearing the full burden of establishing and managing each new location. The franchisor earns revenue through franchise fees, ongoing royalties, and possibly even sales of equipment or supplies to franchisees. Additionally, since franchisees are responsible for day-to-day operations, the franchisor can focus on core business activities such as innovation and brand development.

What Is the Difference Between Licensing a Brand and Franchising a Brand?

Owners looking to grow their brand and business may consider licensing rather than franchising. However, there are significant differences between these two models, primarily regarding the licensing company’s level of control and involvement with the licensee, — the entity receiving the right to use the brand and related processes and procedures.

Like franchising, licensing involves granting permission to use a brand’s name, logo, and intellectual property for specific products, services, or applications. In exchange, the licensee pays upfront licensing fees or ongoing royalties based on sales volume or brand usage.

Unlike franchising, a licensing arrangement does not involve providing the licensee with a complete business model or operational support. While licensors may offer limited support to licensees in terms of branding requirements, marketing materials, and quality control standards, licensees typically have far more decision-making autonomy than franchisees, which means licensors have far less control over quality or how their brand is being used than they would in a franchise arrangement.

Importantly, the legal and regulatory challenges involved in franchising are significantly more complex and burdensome than licensing. Franchises are heavily regulated and scrutinized and involve detailed and specific offering requirements for franchise disclosure documents, agreements, and operating manuals akin to those associated with offering securities. The Federal Trade Commission regulates franchising across the U.S., and 14 states have their own additional requirements. Franchisors must also provide ongoing support and guidance to franchisees to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations regarding everything from employment to health and safety standards.

How To Look at Your Business When Considering Franchising

As noted, franchising may not be the optimal path for all expanding businesses. As you consider the suitability of franchising, consider these factors:

Established and Proven Concept: Your business should have already demonstrated success as an independent venture with a track record of profitability and a distinctive concept that offers a competitive advantage.
Registered Brand: Your brand/logo should be nationally registered, and as this process will take at least 12-18 months, this should be done early.
Scalability and Standardization: Your concept/model should be capable of having well-defined processes, systems, and operational procedures that can be easily replicated across different locations, markets, and economic conditions without losing the core essence that made it successful. Documented manuals, training programs, and support mechanisms will be essential for maintaining consistency and facilitating franchisee success.
Market Demand and Growth Potential: Carefully analyze the market demand for your product or service and evaluate the competitive environment to determine whether it is saturated or has room for sustainable growth.
Profitability and ROI: You can’t evaluate franchising without crunching the numbers and assessing your concept’s potential profitability and return on investment (ROI). Calculate the initial investment required, ongoing operational costs, and projected revenues.

In our next post, we will discuss the first practical steps to take when launching a franchise and how you and your attorney can position your business for sustained growth and success. If you would like to discuss franchising or other avenues for expanding your business, contact Roy Hibberd at Ansell Grimm & Aaron.

Partner Carol Truss Receives Monmouth Bar Association’s 2024 Attorney Excellence Award

Ansell Grimm April 19, 2024

Ansell.Law is thrilled to announce that Carol J. Truss has received the Monmouth Bar Association’s 2024 Attorney Excellence Award in Real Estate and Land Development. Recognizing her distinguished legal career, the award was presented to Truss on April 18, 2024, at the Breakers in Spring Lake.

About the Award

The Attorney Excellence Awards, determined by peers in the legal community, are given annually to celebrate an attorney’s success and leadership within their practice area. Award recipients have earned the respect of their colleagues, adhered to the highest standards of professionalism and ethics, and supported the Monmouth Bar Association.

An Impressive Career

A partner at the Firm, Truss devotes her practice to commercial and residential real estate. She handles all facets of real estate law, including commercial and residential title transfers and refinances, commercial leasing, and residential and commercial property management matters. The purchase and sale of small businesses and the general representation of such companies are also a significant part of her practice, including selling, transferring, and using liquor licenses.

Not only a celebrated attorney, Truss also enjoys a legacy of volunteering in the legal community. She is a past president and active member of the Monmouth Bar Association. She is also a past chair and longtime member of the Real Estate and Land Development Committee. Truss is a past chair and lifetime member of the New Jersey State Bar Association’s Real Property, Trust, and Estate Law Section Board of Consultors.

Recent Posts