The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed with arguments advanced by the New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) and held that amendments to the Child Sexual Assault Act (CSAA) dispensing of the requirement to file a Tort Claims Act (TCA) notice within 90 days applied where the cause of action accrued earlier than the effective date of the amendments to the law. In W.S. v. Hildreth, the Court found in favor of the plaintiff, whose cause of action accrued in 2016. The defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied, which decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division.
The holding was consistent with the Association’s position sought in its amicus curiae brief arguing that the sweeping changes in the statute should be applied here because that was the intent of the changes in the law.
Basing its decision on the plain language of the statute, the Court opined that not applying the statute to cases predating the effective date of the amendments “would lead to absurd results.” Finding that the purpose of the amendments “was to greatly increase the ability of victims of sexual abuse to pursue justice through the court system,” the Court dispensed of the argument that such a reading would expose the “State, school, districts, and local units of government to civil claims that may result in substantial judgments against affected governments.”
“However, in defendants’ view, only those subjected to sexual abuse by a public entity or employee after December 1, 2019, or whose cause of action for such abuse accrued after December 1, 2019, would be able to pursue justice in court,” said the Court in its unanimous opinion, the first penned by Justice Rachel Wainer Apter.
“For everyone else, the Legislature would have intentionally resuscitated child sexual abuse claims against public entities or employees that accrued many years before by retroactively extending the statute of limitations until the victim reached age fifty-five through N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2a(a)(1), only for the claim to be immediately dismissed because the victim did not file a notice of claim within ninety days of the cause of action originally accruing. That would be senseless.”
The NJSBA similarly argued this point: “In the face of crystal-clear intent to pass a statute that opens the door to all victims of sexual assault to bring claims against entities, public and private for civil redress: was there any legislative intent to deny a class of victims such as W.S. the right to proceed based upon prior tort claim notice requirements? Because such denial would be clearly irreconcilable with the language of the statutes and the legislative history; and would further result in unsubstantiated denials of access to civil justice to otherwise similarly-situated victims, the answer must be no.”
The brief was authored by former NJSBA Trustee Craig J. Hubert and current Trustee Thomas J. Manzo. The matter was argued by Hubert.
NJSBA argues to maintain attorney review clause protections in Appellate Division challenge
Stopping short of urging an expansion of the Attorney Review Clause in residential real estate contracts, the NJSBA argued that the strong consumer protection purpose underlying the clause should prevail to allow oral disapproval of the contract to be effective if the proponent can prove that all parties received actual notice. While acknowledging that oral disapproval is not the favored course, the NJSBA noted in its brief that form should not be elevated over substance when interpreting and enforcing the Attorney Review Clause.
The NJSBA appeared as amicus curiae in Fitzpatrick v. Qasim, which was the subject of oral argument before the Appellate Division last week. NJSBA members F. Bradford Batcha and Matthew J. Schiller authored the brief and Batcha argued the case before the Appellate Division.
The matter emanates from a real estate transaction in which the parties agreed to a price, which was later canceled by a telephone call after a second potential buyer offered significantly more money on the property. The cancellation was never put in writing during the three-day period. The NJSBA took no position on the facts in this matter but argued that if the parties could prove actual notice, the contract should be invalidated.
Relying on Conley v. Guerrero, the NJSBA said: “The Conley decision reflects the Court’s sentiment in approving the Attorney Review Clause that courts retain the power to address, ‘questions of the interpretation, application, and general adherence to or enforcement of the settlement that may arise and affect the public interest in the most appropriate manner under the given circumstances.’” The brief quotes an earlier matter in which the NJSBA was a party—New Jersey State Bar Ass’n v. New Jersey Ass’n of Realtor Boards, 93 N.J. 470, 474, modified, 94 N.J. 449 (1983). The NJSBA eventually entered into a settlement that led to the three-day attorney review period in existence today.
The NJSBA continues to monitor the matter.
This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.