MARY E. BRESLIN VS. NORTHGATE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. (C-000276-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3464-16T2

Northgate Condominium (71 units) was governed by a Master Deed and bylaws; the Association and Board administered common elements.
From 2001–2013 the Board litigated against an adjacent developer (Caliber) to prevent water runoff harming common elements, incurring substantial legal and engineering fees.
The Board repeatedly assessed unit owners (including a $10,000 assessment imposed in 2015) to fund litigation and to replenish reserves; Breslin purchased a unit after some assessments had been levied.
Breslin sued on September 16, 2015, arguing the $10,000 assessment was a special assessment requiring owner approval and therefore unauthorized.
After trial the Chancery Division entered judgment for defendants, finding the assessment was a common assessment to protect common elements; the Board then passed additional common assessments to fund litigation and appeal costs.
While this appeal was pending the unit owners (at a properly noticed special meeting) retroactively approved and ratified the prior assessments as special assessments and authorized funding of a fee settlement, prompting the Association to move to dismiss the appeal as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the $10,000 assessment was a special assessment requiring owner approval	Breslin: assessment was a special assessment and invalid without owner vote	Defendants: assessment was a common assessment to protect common elements and validly imposed by Board	Trial court: assessment was a common assessment; on appeal the issue is moot after ratification
Whether the appeal remains justiciable after owners’ retroactive ratification	Breslin: appellate resolution needed to protect future owners from improper assessments	Defendants: ratification resolves dispute; renders appeal moot	Appellate court: appeal is moot because owners validly ratified assessments, which relate back and extinguish present controversy
Whether the court should issue advisory guidance despite mootness	Breslin: asks for advisory opinion clarifying rights under Master Deed/bylaws	Defendants: no need for advisory opinion absent live controversy	Appellate court: declines to issue advisory opinion; courts do not decide abstract issues

Grimes v. City of E. Orange, 288 N.J. Super. 275 (App. Div. 1996) (distinguishing ultra vires from infra vires acts and ratification principles)
Port Liberte II Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. New Liberty Residential Urban Renewal Co., LLC, 435 N.J. Super. 51 (App. Div. 2014) (condominium associations may retroactively ratify infra vires acts if formalities are met)
Caput Mortuum, L.L.C. v. S&S Crown Servs., Ltd., 366 N.J. Super. 323 (App. Div. 2004) (appeals become moot when controversy resolved post-appeal filing)
Cinque v. N.J. Dep’t of Corr., 261 N.J. Super. 242 (App. Div. 1993) (courts dismiss appeals that become academic before resolution)
State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141 (2011) (courts should avoid issuing advisory opinions on abstract legal questions)
Zirger v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co., 144 N.J. 327 (1996) (ordinarily courts will not resolve legal issues in the abstract)