A COUNTRY PLACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION VS. MAROECHEABDELHAK(DC-12065-14, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0145-15T4

Background

Abdelhak owned a unit in a 376-unit Lakewood condominium managed by A Country Place Condominium Association; a management change prompted service disputes.
Abdelhak complained about tree roots and other alleged failures (lawn care, roof mildew cleaning, delayed snow removal) and stopped paying monthly maintenance fees.
The parties entered an agreement: plaintiff would perform front- and back-yard work for about $3,000; Abdelhak paid $1,505 up front; back-yard work was completed, front-yard work was not.
Plaintiff sued in Special Civil Part for unpaid assessments, late fees, and attorney’s fees; Abdelhak counterclaimed for breach of the master deed/bylaws and retaliatory failure to provide services.
Trial court awarded plaintiff $6,615 in unpaid common expenses and $2,435.12 in counsel fees, denied requested late fees, dismissed Abdelhak’s counterclaim, and found some testimony credible but made limited factual findings.
On appeal, this Court affirmed most awards, vacated dismissal of counterclaim, and remanded for specific findings on whether Abdelhak is entitled to a setoff (~$1,500) for the unperformed front-yard work.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) May a unit owner withhold condominium assessments because of dissatisfaction with services?	Association: No; assessments are due regardless of service disputes.	Abdelhak: He can withhold payments where association breaches maintenance obligations.	Held: Owner may not withhold assessments; obligation to pay is unconditional under N.J.S.A. 46:8B-17.
2) Can association recover unpaid assessments and attorney’s fees?	Association: Yes; may collect assessments, interest, late fees, and attorney’s fees if authorized.	Abdelhak: Fees should be offset by association’s failure to perform services.	Held: Affirmed award of $6,615 in unpaid assessments and $2,435.12 in counsel fees; late fees denied by trial court and affirmed.
3) Did defendant prove breach/damages sufficient to set off unpaid assessments?	Association: No adequate proof of damages; no entitlement to setoff.	Abdelhak: Agreement and $1,505 payment show breach (front-yard work not done) and warrant at least a $1,505 setoff.	Held: Trial court erred by failing to make necessary findings on value of unperformed front-yard work; remanded to determine setoff (and allow further proof at court’s discretion).
4) Were the trial court’s findings sufficiently specific under R.1:7-4(a)?	Association: Findings were adequate to support judgment.	Abdelhak: Findings were vague/oblique and failed to tie facts to legal conclusions.	Held: Findings were inadequate on counterclaim damages; harmless for most claims due to lack of proof, but remand required on the agreed $1,505 issue.

Key Cases Cited

D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168 (2013) (standard of appellate review for non-jury findings)
Brandon Farms Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Brandon Farms Condo. Ass'n, 180 N.J. 361 (2004) (unit owners’ assessment obligations)
Ocean Club Condo. Ass'n v. Gardner, 318 N.J. Super. 237 (App. Div. 1998) (assessment liability and association duties)
The Glen, Section I Condo. Ass'n v. June, 344 N.J. Super. 371 (App. Div. 2001) (owner’s obligation to pay assessments unconditional; remedy is setoff for provable damages)
High Point at Lakewood Condo. Ass'n v. Township of Lakewood, 442 N.J. Super. 123 (App. Div. 2015) (interpretation of condominium statutory duties)
Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469 (2016) (elements of breach of contract)
Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414 (2015) (requirement for explicit trial-court findings and reasons)
Cumberland Cty. Improvement Auth. v. GSP Recycling Co., 358 N.J. Super. 484 (App. Div.) (2003) (plaintiff’s burden to prove damages)
Berzito v. Gambino, 63 N.J. 460 (1973) (landlord-tenant setoff analogy for withheld rent due to habitability breaches)
Marini v. Ireland, 56 N.J. 130 (1970) (tenant’s rent obligation despite landlord’s repair failures)
Nolan v. Lee Ho, 120 N.J. 465 (1990) (contract breach principles)