What Tom Is Referring too...

Click to Enlarge

The letter that Tom Maloney refers to in the Oct 27, 2008 AGM Minutes


Tom Maloney in his Minutes of the Oct 27, 2008 Annual Meeting does not dispute the contents of this letter. He never tried to refute the facts stated in the letter (referred to in Tom Maloney's 10/27/08 Minutes) because he can not as they are 100% true. Dan Rosen till this day, still refuses to disclose what he bought with the Association's $3,030 check. Tom Maloney refused to answer why he didn't disclose to the Association what the police or the Prosecutor's office were telling him or even that the Association had been served with a Grand Jury subpoena, apparently Tom doesn't think the Association has a right to know. Tom, like Dan, refused to answer what was purchased with this $3,030.00 check Dan Rosen wrote to himself from the Association's bank account. If this $3,030 check was used for Association's legitimate business, why doesn't Dan Rosen or lawyer Tom Maloney simply explain what the money was used for?

At the 10/27/08 annual meeting, Tom Maloney answered "yes" when asked if he is representing Dan Rosen. The obvious question arises: When he conducts Association business as its Secretary and Board member is he putting the interests of the Association first or Dan Rosen?

Legal Opinion Letter on Running a Business in the Mendham Lake Estates (MLE)

Dear Members of the MLE,

As many of you know on January 26, 2009 there was a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the MLE. In this meeting, a question arose as to the interpretation of a specific clause of the MLE “Declaration of Covenants & Restrictions”[1]. This particular clause deals with the use of the homes in the Association.

It was suggested at this meeting that the Association get a legal opinion clarifying MLE Declaration of Covenants & Restrictions 10.01. After two weeks have elapsed and no word from the Board, I took it upon myself to ask Mr. Andrew Brewer of the law firm of Maraziti, Falcon & Healey L.L.P.[2] to issue a Legal Opinion Letter in this matter. This law firm is an expert in government, municipal and association law; it represents many N.J Township Planning Boards and various Associations around the State of N.J.

His opinion can be summed up in two points:

1) The MLE Declaration of Covenants & Restrictions does not allow any use of a member’s property for anything other than private residential use. It is therefore more restrictive than the Township’s ordinances. Hence its inclusion in the Association’s Declaration of Covenants & Restrictions which by definition is meant to be more restrictive than federal, state or local government laws and ordinances. Home office permits and use variances maybe allowed by the township upon application but they are not allowed by MLE governing rules.

2) Anyone using a home for anything else other than a private residence is in violation of their contractual obligations of the MLE.


The last point is highlighted to show this Opinion Letter is an interpretation of the MLE Declaration of Covenants & Restrictions 10.01 only and not meant to reflect an opinion on anything else.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Unit ownership is subject to certain restrictive covenants (deed restrictions). These are usually embodied in a recorded legal document called "Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions" which is recorded at the county Register of Deeds office. The declaration describes the nature of the project and establishes rules to govern the use of the units and common areas. For example, the declaration may limit the property to residential use, require that units be a minimum size and certain architectural style, etc.

[2] Neither he nor this law firm has, to the best of knowledge ever represented a member or the Association and does not currently have any interest in any pending matter connected to the Association or its membership.

Click to enlarge