Newfield Fire Company No. 1 v. the Borough of Newfield, 107 A.3d 686

Background

Newfield Fire Company No. 1 is a long-standing volunteer nonprofit firefighting organization that serves the Borough of Newfield.
The Fire Company is independent of the Borough but historically intertwined, sharing facilities and funding elements such as insurance, utilities, and some equipment.
Borough ordinances from 2010-11 and 2011-15 purported to regulate and broaden Borough supervision over the Fire Company, culminating in Ordinance 2013-7.
Ordinance 2013-7 provides that all Fire Company line officers must be appointed by the Borough Governing Body, with other governance controls.
The Fire Company challenged Ordinance 2013-7 as ultra vires, arguing it exceeded statutory authority under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-68 and intruded into its bylaws and day-to-day operations.
The trial court excised three provisions of Ordinance 2013-7 and upheld the remainder as a valid exercise of municipal authority under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-68; the Fire Company appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ordinance 2013-7 stays within N.J.S.A. 40A:14-68’s scope.	Fire Company contends ordinance exceeds statutory scope by intruding into governance.	Borough asserts ordinance provides appropriate supervision and control under the statute.	Yes, within scope after excisions; upheld as enforceable contract framework.
Whether the Fire Company remains a private entity or becomes a municipal department under the statute.	Fire Company is a private nonprofit with independent bylaws and governance unrelated to municipal control.	Volunteer fire companies are quasi-public; municipality may supervise and control them for public functions.	Municipal supervision is authorized; the Fire Company remains subject to contract-like controls, not day-to-day operations.
Whether the Borough may require approval of bylaws and officers while respecting the Fire Company's autonomy.	Bylaws and officer appointments are internal to the nonprofit and protected by its charter and bylaws.	Ordinance may require Borough oversight of bylaws and line officers to ensure public function and accountability.	With excisions, the Borough may require some oversight but not day-to-day governance.
Whether the ordinance, as applied, constitutes a valid contract between the Borough and Fire Company.	There was no mutual assent or meeting of the minds to create an enforceable contract.	Ordinance, once narrowed, establishes a mutual framework under which the Fire Company may continue as the designated fire force.	Yes, as excised, Ordinance 2013-7 constitutes a valid, enforceable contract if the Fire Company accepts terms.
What are the consequences if the Fire Company declines the terms of Ordinance 2013-7?	Fire Company should not be forced into a contractual arrangement; its status should remain independent.	If terms are rejected, the Borough may seek an alternative entity to perform firefighting functions and seize assets if necessary.	If rejected, the Borough may assume control of property and seek a replacement entity.

Key Cases Cited

Hutton Park Gardens v. Town Council of West Orange, 68 N.J. 543 (1975) (ordinance validity and presumption of validity in municipal law)
Quick Chek Food Stores v. Springfield, 83 N.J. 438 (1980) (strict review of municipal ordinances; arbitrary/unreasonable standard)
State v. Robinson, 217 N.J. 594 (2014) (statutory interpretation; Legislature intent governs)
Migliaccio v. Borough of West Long Branch, 266 N.J. Super. 111 (App. Div. 1992) (ordinance satisfied the statute; contract framework support)
Paff v. N.J. State Firemen's Ass'n, 431 N.J. Super. 278 (App. Div. 2013) (volunteer firemen serve under supervision and control; governmental function)
Schwartz v. Stockton, 32 N.J. 141 (1960) (volunteer fire companies as quasi-public entities)
D'Eustachio v. City of Beverly, 177 N.J. Super. 566 (Law Div. 1979) (volunteer fire company public status)
Migliaccio, 266 N.J. Super. 111, 266 N.J. Super. 111 (App. Div. 1992) (see Migliaccio above)