Letters

New Jersey Appleseed

Public Interest Law Center of New Jersey

50 Park Place, Suite 1025

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Phone: 973.735.0523 Fax: 973-710-4653

Email: renee@njappleseed.org

Website: www.njappleseed.org

March 2, 2020

Mary Seage, President

Cranberry Lake Community Club

Route 206, Byram Township

P.O. Box 360

Andover, New Jersey 07821

Re: Denial of Membership in Cranberry Lake Community Club (“CLCC”)

Dear Ms. Seage and all CLCC Board Members:

I am writing to you on behalf of Homeowners at Cranberry State Lake United, an

unincorporated group of property owners residing in areas historically comprising the Cranberry

Lake Summer Colony, a relatively significant land area in the Township of Byram which was

originally subdivided in the 1920s. The group was formed to work with the NJ Department of

Environmental Protection (“DEP”) to ensure the future integrity and sustainability of Cranberry

Lake for public use, and to resist continuing attempts by the CLCC to foist mandatory

membership on members of Homeowners at Cranberry State Lake United, most recently

pursuant to the 2017 election amendments to the Planned Real Estate Development and Full

Disclosure Act (“PREDFDA”), often referred to as the “Radburn Law”.

New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center (“NJA”) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3)

organization, which has a Common Interest Association Democracy Project under which we

have decided to represent the members of Homeowners at Cranberry State Lake United. This

project was operated jointly with Professor Frank Askin of the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation

Clinic prior to his retirement, and thus has focused and continues to focus on assisting common

interest association owners in their various efforts to ensure open and fair board elections

pursuant to the New Jersey Constitution and the PREDFDA.

Pursuant to this project, I personally litigated Moore et al. v. Radburn Association, both

in the trial and appellate courts; and in the late 1990’s, NJA represented homeowners who held

an easement right to access Upper Greenwood Lake and thus were responsible for a fair-share

assessment, but had no representation on the board of the association that exacted that

assessment. Thus, I am particularly dismayed by the CLCC’s distortion of the Radburn Law;

that is, to take a statutory mandate to ensure representation on association boards for all property

owners residing in common interest communities, who are required by deed or common law to

2

pay an assessment to maintain commonly owned or shared property, and convert it into an

obligation to pay membership fees to an entity, which in effect is nothing more than a social

club. Despite the CLCC’s attempts to represent itself as a common interest association, which

pursuant to a master deed is required to maintain and/or own common elements or property for

use by all unit owners, it appears from a review of the relevant deeds and other historical

documents, that the CLCC was nothing more than a veiled attempt by Mr. William Drews and

other founding trustees to control the ethnic make-up of the families who would either own or

lease property at Cranberry Lake (through a sales restriction that would disappear in the event

that the CLCC dissolved).

As will be explained in detail below, it is the position of Homeowners of Cranberry State

Lake United that the neighborhoods constituting Cranberry Lake Summer Colony do not

constitute a planned real estate development (“PRED”), as now contemplated by the statute,

N.J.S.A. 45:22A-23(h). Just because one landowner subdivided his property over a period of

ten or more years, filed maps entitling different sections of such land as all within the Cranberry

Lake Summer Colony, and sold such lots adjacent to or within the close proximity of a stateowned

lake (perhaps under one promotional plan), does not make such area a PRED, with

commonly held or shared property and/or facilities for the exclusive use by the owners residing

within that subdivided area.

The historical facts cannot be rewritten: The CLCC has never owned or maintained its

clubhouse, beach, docks or other facilities (that have come and gone, such as tennis courts) on

commonly held property nor has it operated those facilities for the exclusive use of all property

owners who have bought lots in the areas once designated as the Cranberry Lake Summer

Colony. Deeds under which the CLCC acquired property from the Cranberry Lake

Development Co. in 1925, and later, Susan Calkins in 1937, and Robert Dennis in 2000, or the

agreement under which the CLCC has leased property from the DEP do not indicate that the

land was transferred “upon trust for the common use, benefit and enjoyment by all the owners”

of any lands now or hereafter that are subject to the provisions of any uniform declaration of

restrictions or covenants granting such owners access to such properties.

The fact that the relevant development activity occurred in the 1920s is no excuse for the

lack of deed language and appropriate documents even if Mr. Drews intended (of which we

have only scant evidence) to develop the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony as a PRED with

commonly shared or owned property. As you may know, Radburn was developed during a

similar time period, and the Radburn Association was specifically charged with maintaining,

improving and developing over 149 acres of interior parkland, a host of recreational facilities,

and other properties within its control for the mutual benefit of its residents. Conversely,

purchasers of any parcel covered by a declaration of covenants and restrictions, whether that

property was purchased from the original developer or subsequent entities, were granted access

to such common properties, and were deemed to agree to pay the Radburn Association an

annual assessment to be fixed by the Association. These hallmarks of a common interest

community are absent here: declaration of covenants and restrictions on use of individually

owned unit or lot (i.e., master deed), commonly held or shared property, and easements granting

owners access to such commonly held property. Accordingly, any attempt to employ either the

1993 or 2017 democracy amendments to PREDFDA, which together were intended to enhance

3

owner participation rights in the governance of common interest communities, to force

membership on homeowners, who by deed, have no easement or right to use property held by

CLCC, is completely unjustified, and a perverse application of the law.

PREDFDA Amendments, P.L. 2017, Chapter.106 (S. 2492)

In direct response to the unpublished decisions in Moore et al. v. Radburn Association,

the Legislature amended PREDFDA, N.J.S.A. 45:22A-21 et seq., in 2017 to enhance the voting

rights of residents owning or leasing property in common interest communities. The

amendments were intended to make clear that all unit owners residing in such communities, who

(1) either owned a proportionate share of common property or were given access to such

property and (2) were required to pay an assessment to an association that was responsible for

the maintenance of such common property, were able to nominate themselves to the board and/or

elect each board member of the association’s governing board. The law was also intended to

clarify that the Department of Community Affairs had jurisdiction over common interest

association elections, not just financial disclosure, open board meetings and alternative dispute

resolution. The amendments did not change the definition of a “planned real estate development”

or “association,” just “association member,” among other substantive changes concerning

association elections.

Prior to the 2017 amendments, N.J.S.A. 45:22A-45(a), which the court in Comm. For a

Better Twin Rivers, v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Ass’n, 383 N.J. Super. 22, 50-51 (App. Div.

2006), rev’d on other grounds, 192 N.J. 344 (2007), had found to apply retroactively to common

interest communities organized prior to 1977 when PREDFDA was first enacted, stated as

follows:

The form of administration of an association . . . shall provide for the

election of an executive board, elected by and responsible to the members of an

association. (emphasis added).

This provision was the only provision in the relevant part of PREDFDA that employed

the term “members.” On the other hand, several other provisions of the 1993 democracy

amendments employed the term “unit owners” or “owners” rather than “members.” E.g.,

N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46(a)(permits unit owners to attend board meetings of association); N.J.S.A.

45:22A-46(b)(required bylaws to include method of calling meetings of unit owners); N.J.S.A.

45:22A-46(c)(required bylaws to set forth manner of collecting assessments from unit owners);

and N.J.S.A. 45:22A-47(a) (sets forth manner in which control of association was to be

surrendered by developer to the owners and called for the executive board of association

ultimately to be elected by owners). Despite legislative history making it clear that the purpose

of the 1993 amendments to PREDFDA was “to safeguard the interests of the individual owners

with respect to various governance issues,”1 both Moore v. Radburn courts refused to provide

Radburn owners with the right to elect the governing board of their association. For historical

reasons, unit owners in the Radburn community were not members of the Association; only

trustees and former trustees of such association were members. As a result, a group of

approximately 36 people, including the nine trustees in power at any given time, controlled the

1 Committee Statement to Senate, No. 217, L.1993, c.30.

4

budget, assessments and common property of a community of over 1,200 families, without the

accountability and responsiveness that representative democracy is supposed to ensure.

To solve this injustice, the Legislature responded by amending certain provisions of the

1993 amendments to PREDFDA regarding elections, bylaws and amendments to bylaws.

N.J.S.A. 45:22A-45(a) was changed to read:

The form of administration of an association organized pursuant to section

1 of P.L.1993, c.30 (C.45:22A-43) shall provide for the election of an executive

board, elected by the association members, and voting-eligible tenants where

applicable, and responsible to the members of the association pursuant to section

4 of P.L.1993, c.30 (C.45:22A-46), through which the powers of the association

shall be exercised and its functions performed. N.J.S.A. 45:22A-45(a).

And the definition of “association member” was changed to provide:

“Association member" means the owner of a unit within a planned real

estate development, or a unit's tenant to the extent that the governing documents

of the planned real estate development permit tenant membership in the

association, and the developer to the extent that the development contains unsold

lots, parcels, units, or interests pursuant to subsection c. of section 1 of P.L.1993,

c.30 (C.45:22A-43). . . N.J.S.A. 45:22A-23(q).

Notwithstanding these changes, what did not change was either the definition of “planned

real estate development” or the “association” governing that PRED. The former remained

defined, in part, as:

"Planned real estate development" or "development" means any real

property situated within the State, whether contiguous or not, which consists of or

will consist of, separately owned areas, irrespective of form, be it lots, parcels,

units, or interest, and which are offered or disposed of pursuant to a common

promotional plan, and providing for common or shared elements or interests in

real property. . . This definition shall be construed liberally to effectuate the

purposes of this act. N.J.S.A. 45:22A-23(h).

The latter remained defined as:

"Association" means an association for the management of common

elements and facilities, organized pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1993, c.30

(C.45:22A-43). N.J.S.A. 45:22A-23(n).

A review of the 2017 amendments and the legislative statements accompanying such

amendments indicates that the purpose of the amendments was not to redefine a planned real

estate development or the organization governing such PRED. Rather, the purpose was just to

make sure that property owners residing in such common interest communities had the right to

elect the board that was exacting an assessment from them and that governed the commonly

5

owned or shared property.2 It therefore follows that the CLCC’s position that changes made to

PREDFDA pursuant to Chapter 106 require that all owners in certain areas of Cranberry Lake

become members of the CLCC cannot be sustained by the legislative amendments that were

actually made. Either the CLCC was a PRED association already in 1994 or it was not a PRED

association in 1994; if the latter, it did not become one in 2017, and surely is not one now. It

simply cannot employ the Radburn Law to effect a policy that it has been trying to implement at

least since 1987, if not earlier, to no avail.3

In short, what the Radburn Law does make clear is that it is the obligation to pay an

assessment by deed (i.e., individual property lots or units are governed by a declaration of

restrictions and covenants, including agreement to pay assessment to maintain commonly held or

shared property) or common law (i.e., deed easement to use certain shared facilities supports

obligation to pay for maintenance of such shared property or facilities) gives rise to membership

for purposes of voting for the executive board of the association, which holds the common

property in trust for or on behalf of the individual property owners. The explicit intent of the

2017 amendments was to enable such owners, who pay an assessment, to hold the association to

which they pay such assessment accountable. There is simply nothing in the law requiring a

property owner to pay to maintain property, facilities or services to which they have no access or

easement rights pursuant to their deed.

Furthermore, under PREDFDA, the association that has the authority to exact an

assessment must own and/or maintain common property that is shared by all homeowners who

live within the development. As already noted but bears repeating, the fact that parcels were

sold by one development company, including property to a community club, does not render that

club a homeowners association. The CLCC does not own any shared/common property or

facilities; indeed, as will be shown below, its right to use Cranberry Lake per its 1925 deed

requiring it to erect a clubhouse on certain property, is no different than the right of any other

2 It is our position that A2480/S908, which has passed the Senate and is awaiting action by the

Assembly, supports this position. That is, the bill merely clarifies the 2017 amendments and

does not change them; it emphasizes that the Legislature had no intention to compel property

owners who have no servitude in their “deed titles” to use property held and maintained by an

association to become members of such organizations. Simply put, if an association does not

have the legal authority to exact a fair share assessment, it has no authority to exact additional

membership fees.

3 I am in possession of a complaint filed by the CLCC against hundreds of persons, “who

presently own property in the Cranberry Lake Community.” The complaint was filed in 1987, C-

2262-87, Sussex County, seeking to declare that ‘all property owners within the geographic area

under the control of the [CLCC] shall be obliged to pay proper fees, dues and assessments to the

Community Club.” The Complaint does not set forth the geographic area “under the control of

the CLCC” nor does it define what it means by “under the control of.” Notwithstanding, a Final

Judgment Dismissing the Complaint, Amended Complaint, Second Amended Complaint and

Counter Claims was entered on January 4, 1990, with prejudice and without costs. A strong

argument can be made that any further attempt to exact a fair share assessment under the

common law from any property owner named in this complaint, and their successors, would be

subject to the doctrine of res judicata.

6

homeowner purchasing a lot in the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony.4 (Its 1990 lease with the

State, which since 1922 owns Cranberry Lake in trust for the public, is yet another story that will

be discussed below). Also, although one of the purposes of the CLCC when it was first

incorporated in 1924 was to erect a community building for use by its members (who owned or

leased property in the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony), its members have historically included

owners or persons who have leased property within all the areas surrounding Cranberry Lake,

not just lots within the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony. And finally, none of the deeds of any

of the members of Homeowners of Cranberry State Lake United grant such owner the right to the

use, benefit or enjoyment of any CLCC property or facility. As such, the CLCC’s position

fundamentally turns the Radburn Law on its head (i.e., forcing unit owners to become a member

of an association in order to justify exacting an assessment against them in the form of

membership fees), and is blatantly wrong as a matter of law.

A detailed review of deeds, maps, leases and other historical documents will further

support our conclusion.

Factual Background and Chronology of Cranberry Lake Summer Colony

The story of the Cranberry Lake community appropriately begins when the New Jersey

Legislature passed an act on December 31, 1824, incorporating the Morris Canal and Banking

Co. to form an artificial waterway capable of navigation between the Passaic and Delaware

rivers. N.J.S.A. 13:12-1 (L.1824, pg. 158).5 Such waterway included a body of water then

known as Cranberry Pond located in Byram Township. Around 1836, the Morris Canal and

Banking Co. expanded the pond, and built a 200-acre lake, known as the Cranberry Reservoir or

Cranberry Lake. To do so, the Company received an easement to flood approximately 41 acres

of Rose Farm property, with that portion of the lake bottom still held in private hands. The

original company failed in 1841 and was reorganized in 1844. Banking privileges were dropped

in 1849, leaving the company as a canal-operating business only. As early as 1903, the canal

was losing its economic justification; a plan of abandonment was sent to the legislature in 1905

and 1912, but nothing happened until 1922. At that time, the Morris Canal passed into the hands

of the State of New Jersey, N.J.S.A. 13:12-3 (L.1922, c.212), but title to canal property and

water rights continued to be vested in the Company “in trust for the state of New Jersey.” Id. 6

(L.1923, c. 11).7

4 It should be noted that the property on which the clubhouse was built, and continues to

exist (T-12 p.480 Calkins to Cranberry Lake Development Company (“CLDC”), February 9,

1925; T-12 p.482 CLDC to CLCC, February 11, 1925) does not appear on any of the Cranberry

Lake Summer Colony maps filed by the CLDC throughout the 1920s.

5 This history of the canal is taken primarily from James Lee, “Morris Canal—A

Photographic History” and “The Morris Canal and Banking Company” on Wikipedia.

6 Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:12-4, “The rights vested in the Canal and Banking Company to

impound and divert waters of lakes, ponds and streams, and the property and rights vested in

such company in . . . Cranberry Lake . . . together with all such lands, easements, rights and

property, the title to which is vested in company in trust for the State of New Jersey, as may be

7

So, once canal operations formally ended, and Cranberry Lake became a public lake open

for recreational purposes (e.g., fishing, boating, swimming), its potential to become “an ideal

vacation resort[]” became apparent to some of Byram Township landowners, primarily Mr.

William A. Drews.8 There is little doubt that during the first decade of the Twentieth Century,

Cranberry Lake had been the focus of weekend traffic, brought by the Lackawanna Railroad to

its shores, which included a casino and nearby amusement park. But this activity all ended in

1911, when the Cranberry Lake Hotel burned down (which had been located on the site of the

current CLCC clubhouse) and the “railroad’s excursions were ended.”9 Now, over ten years later,

the lake could support family-oriented, seasonal recreational activities, and Mr. Drews jumped at

the chance to do so (and, presumably, make some money).

Mr. James Frenche, the father of Susan Calkins, was the original owner of all the land at

the lake that became designated as the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony. Mr. Frenche owned

approximately 1,256 acres (received primarily from William Dawson and Eliza Dawson in 1886,

with a small amount from Edward Cooper and Abram Hewitt in 1885), which his daughter

inherited upon his death in June 1917. In a deed dated 11/4/1922, Susan Calkins transferred

about 656 acres of her property to William Drews (book H-12, p.236); in turn, on 11/9/1922,

Drews transferred that same property to the CLDC, (book H-12, p.249). This acreage seems to

have included tracts located in areas historically identified as Cabin Springs Park, Frenche’s

Grove, Laurel Cove, Weaver House Cove, Della Heights, Strawberry Point, and Weaver House

Heights.

necessary to maintain such lakes and ponds, or as may be of public value for public parks or

recreation areas, shall be retained by such company in trust for the State of New Jersey, for the

public use of conserving the public waters of the State or for public use for recreation, and shall

be and are hereby dedicated to such public use.”

7 In 1924, legislation was enacted that provided that members of the NJ Board of

Conservation and Development be appointed directors of the Morris Canal and Banking Co., that

operation of the canal be ended and that several lakes, including Cranberry Lake, be retained for

public use. N.J.S.A. 13:12-6 (L.124, c.80). The NJ Department of Environmental Protection

(“DEP”) continues to this day to manage the properties under the terms of the 1924 law. N.J.S.A.

13:12-7.

8 “Early in the 1920’s, Mr. William A. Drews, Horace A. Springer and others formed the

Cranberry Lake Development Company for the purpose of promoting a summer colony, which

would be attractive to congenial people of good American stock.” Carl O. Johnson and Elspeth

Hart, “Byram Township, County of Sussex 1860” at p.42 (New Jersey Herald, 1964)(quoting

Andrew Spence) (emphasis added) As Andrew Spence further noted in his “Historical Sketches

of Cranberry Lake, N.J.” (1939), the plan of these folks included “. . . the construction of

moderately priced summer homes, the erection of a Community Center Building, the

improvement of the Lake shore, and the establishment of tennis courts, bathing beaches,

community docks and trails, water supply and other matters which go to creating a healthful and

enjoyable summer playground.” (emphasis added).

9 Johnson and Hart, supra. n.8, at p.41.

8

The record indicates that the CLDC was incorporated by Mr. Drews several days earlier,

on 10/31/1922, but, for some unknown reason, he did not record such incorporation document

until two years later, on 12/2/1924. A review of the Certificate of Incorporation further indicates

that the company’s principal office was located in Newark and “the objects for which said

corporation formed [we]re: To purchase, hire or otherwise acquire real and personal property,

improved and unimproved, of kind and description; to enter into contracts to sell said property,

or any part thereof; to sell, dispose of, lease, convey and mortgage said property, or any part

thereof.. . .” The additional purposes of the development company were general and extensive;

what is lacking in such papers is any indication that the corporation was chartered to

establish a planned, separately incorporated, or distinctly bordered residential community

located at Cranberry Lake in Byram Township. Over the next two years, we have identified

at least three maps that proposed a subdivision of some of the property transferred to Mr. Drews

in late 1922.10 None of these maps indicates lots or areas to be held in common for the benefit

and use of all other lot owners.

On 5/13/1924, the CLCC was incorporated, with Mr. William Drews named as the first

trustee among 15 other men, and he was designated its resident agent upon whom process against

the corporation could be served. The Certificate of Incorporation, No. 26936, was recorded on

7/15/24. The club was incorporated as a nonprofit, and its purpose was as follows:

The purpose of which it is formed is for the erection and maintenance of a

clubhouse at Cranberry Lake . . . for the benefit and use of its members and to

ensure the future character and welfare of the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony.

(Emphasis added.)

The Certificate further notes that

No person shall be entitled to a regular membership in this Association who is not

the owner of the title to property in the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony and

which is held under the terms of a sales agreement and deed from the Cranberry

Lake Development Co.

Several things are important to note about this certificate of incorporation. First, Mr.

Drews and his cohorts incorporated a community club; they did not incorporate the

Cranberry Lake Summer Colony. That is, even if they intended to charter a planned

community, they did not do so. Instead, they chartered a community club whose mission was “to

ensure the future character and welfare of the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony;” those

“congenial people of good American stock” of whom Mr. Spence spoke in his 1939 Historical

Sketches of Cranberry Lake New Jersey. Second, although the club was tasked with the erection

and maintenance of a clubhouse at Cranberry Lake, the trustees did not mission the nonprofit

10 Map No. 1, Frenche’s Grove, Cranberry Lake Summer Col., Oct. 1, 1922, approved March 6,

1923 (includes Laurel Cove tract, but not separately named); Map No. 2, Della Heights, Dec. 1,

1923, approved Oct. 29, 1924; Map No. 3, Weaver House Cove, Cranberry Lake Summer

Colony, Oct. 31, 1922, revised May 25, 1923, approved Oct. 29, 1924.

9

with “purchasing, holding, improving and maintaining, in common, a club house and other

property for the benefit and use of all persons who own or lease property in areas that

constitute the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony.” Third, membership in the club was limited

to “owner[s] of the title to property in the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony and which is held

under the terms of a . . . deed from the Cranberry Lake Development Co.,” but membership did

not include all such owners. Finally, the areas within the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony

were not designated in the certificate. Based on this certificate, its amended version in 1937

(which will be discussed infra), and the operation of the club going forward, one must conclude

that this organization was not at its inception, or since, a common interest association, as

understood and defined by PREDFDA.

On 5/31/1924, Susan Calkins transferred an additional six plots to Willam Drews all on

the South side of Cranberry Lake, (book P-12, p.157); in turn, on 6/9/1924, Drews transferred

this property to the CLDC. (book P-12, p.162). The areas covered by this transfer included Briar

Heights, Whitney Point and, perhaps some lots in Della Heights. In November 1924, Map 4,

which included certain lots located in Strawberry Point, was filed. We do not have such map in

our possession, but it is referred to on Map No. 14, Strawberry Point, Cranberry Lake Summer

Colony, dated June 1, 1927.

The following year, on 2/09/1925, Susan Calkins transferred to the CLDC two tracts of

land that may have been included in the 1922 transfer to Drews recorded in book H-12. The two

tracts were the site on which the current clubhouse sits, as well as a certain tract of land located n

Frenche’s Grove described as “Clubhouse Site and Public Grounds,” where the railroad earlier in

the century had operated an amusement park (book T-12, p.480). Two days later, the CLDC

transferred these same properties to the CLCC, (book T-12, p.482). This deed specifically

required the CLCC to employ proceeds from the sale of the second tract to erect a clubhouse on

the first tract; however, records indicate that the second tract located in Frenche’s Grove was not

sold for market value until the 1970s, although it changed hands several times among a number

of individuals for $1.00 consideration.11 Furthermore, it is clear from the relevant deed that the

CLCC did not receive rights to use the lake or any portion thereof that were superior to or greater

than any other owner purchasing land at Cranberry Lake, which at this time, were no greater than

any member of the general public.12 This is the case because even if Mr. Frenche had had an

11 Like many of the deed histories associated with the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony, this

one is very confusing. Working backwards, we have traced this back to the CLDC through the

Cranberry Lake Holding Co., not the CLCC. Robert Canning and his wife purchased Lots 6, 9,

and 10 shown on Frenche’s Grove, Map 9, C-H section, on 4/10/70, Deed 865 p. 429, from

Lawrence Green and his wife for $2,500; Mr. Green and his wife had purchased it on 4/10/50,

Deed 460, p. 324, from Isidore Hornstein and his wife for $1.00, who had purchased it on 5/5/33,

Deed 337, p. 383 from Margareta Kramer and her husband, also for $1.00. Margareta Kramer

had purchased it on 2/16/31, Deed 322 p.379 from Cranberry Lake Holding Co. for $1.00, which

had received the property from Consolidated Holding Co., which got it from the CLDC. This

leads one to believe that the CLCC never actually took control and possession of the second tract

from the CLDC.

12 The relevant deed provision reads as follows:

10

agreement with the Morris Canal and Banking Co. permitting him use of the Lake, personally or

on behalf of any of his commercial enterprises, any such rights or easements (which would have

been transferred to his daughter) would have been superseded by the canal company’s 1922

legislative mandate to hold the Lake “in trust” for the State of New Jersey; and specifically, for

the general public’s recreational use, when the operation of the canal was ended.

On April 11, 1925, Susan Calkins deeded a seventh plot of land to William Drews, which

appears to have been located in Strawberry Point. (book X-12, p.548). We have evidence of

minimal activity during the rest of 1925 through 1926 (except, we know that Mr. Drews may

have been selling or renting cabins from a real estate office located in a log cabin, south of the

entrance to the development area around the Lake, in which a private post office was established;

that building, according to Mr. Spence, was demolished in 1936).13 In a set of deeds dated

3/31/1927, Susan Calkins appears to have re-transferred the seven tracks of property conveyed to

Drews in the 1924 and 1925 deeds above. However, after describing those same properties, the

deeds, Nos. 3411, 3412, 3414 and 3416, “except” such properties. (Deed 296, p.209) The

seventh lot, however, located in Strawberry Point, which Mr. Drews had not transferred to the

CLDC, seems to be described differently. The CLDC subsequently filed a revised map, Map No.

14, Strawberry Point, Cranberry Lake Summer Colony, on June 1, 1927. Earlier that year, the

Company had filed Map No. 6, Cabin Springs Park, Cranberry Lake Summer Colony, on March

1, 1927. No areas to be shared by owners of lots located in Strawberry Point or Cabin Springs

Park, in common, are designated or marked on these maps.

Soon thereafter, the stock market crashed and the Depression hit. On Sept. 5, 1930, the

CLDC conveyed its unsold properties remaining from the approximately 800 acres it received

directly from Susan Calkins or through William Drews to the Consolidated Holding Company.

(Deed 319, p.418). One month later, on Oct. 4 1930, the Consolidated Holding Co. conveyed the

same property to the Cranberry Holding Corp. (Deed 321, p.278); which in turn, on 12/7/31

returned the property to Hiram B. Calkins, Susan Calkins son. (Deed 327, p.226). In 1934, the

Cutler Real Estate Management Corp. filed a map entitled, Map of Section 1, Whitney Point,

Cranberry Lake Development. This map was revised in 1936, and neither identified this

subdivision area as within Cranberry Lake Summer Colony. In January 1936, Hiram Calkins

died with Adele Calkins as his surviving heir. Litigation between Adele and Susan Calkins

followed with Adele transferring all the property in her husband’s estate to Susan on Aug. 24,

1936. (Deed 252, p.241).

H(1) It is the intent and purpose of this instrument to convey to the grantee, in

common with all other purchasers or owners of land at Cranberry Lake and the

vicinity such rights as the grantor has or ought to have in and on and to the waters

of Cranberry Lake or Cranberry Reservoir.

13 Map No. 8, Briar Heights, Cranberry Lake Summer Colony, was filed on June 1, 1926,

and revised on Feb. 1, 1928; and Map No. 10, Weaver House Heights, Cranberry Lake Summer

Co., was filed on Nov. 1, 1926. Neither map indicated the intention to create property to be used

in common by all owners residing in the two respective areas.

11

The following year, in a document dated 5/29/37, the CLCC amended its Certificate of

Incorporation to modify its mission and change its membership criteria. The purpose was

amended to read:

SECOND. The purpose for which this corporation is formed is to insure the

present and future character and welfare of the development known as the

Cranberry Lake Summer Colony . . . and to promote the welfare, recreational,

social and intellectual interests of its members.

In addition, the previous membership paragraph was expanded to provide:

SIXTH. Membership shall be limited to persons who have been elected to

membership and who control property at Cranberry Lake either through (a)

ownership or (b) lease . . . or persons who are about to purchase lands at

Cranberry Lake and who agree to sell or lease such holdings only to persons

accepted by the Club as members. . .

SEVENTH A member shall not be entitled to resign from membership in the Club

so long as he or she continues to own or control property at Cranberry Lake.

Upon disposition of a member’s property at Cranberry Lake, such member may

resign from membership . . . providing all dues and other obligations . . . have

been paid . . . and provided he or she shall have disposed of said property to a

member of the Club.

An analysis of these changes only reinforces the position of the Homeowners at

Cranberry State Lake United that the CLCC was not, and still is not, a common interest

association. In the amended certificate, all reference to a clubhouse is removed, and the

organization reads like a civic organization, with no mission to hold or improve real

property in common for the benefit of all persons residing in the Summer Colony. 14

Secondly, membership was no longer limited to persons, who owned or leased property at

Cranberry Lake Summer Colony; it now required the person to “have been elected to

membership” and included those who controlled property at Cranberry Lake, not just in the

Colony.15 The inclusion of prospective purchasers seems to be a retroactive attempt to render

14 Up until 1937, many needed improvements were made to Cranberry Lake, which Andrew

Spence, in 1939, attributed to the “Club’s leadership.” These included raising the level of the

Lake three times; removing obstructions from South Lake, “a majority of the coves” and “the

handsome foot bridge;” placing navigation lights in the Lake; controlling the level of the Lake by

two masonry spillways; and annually stocking the Lake with fish resulting in “many a whopper

of a fish story.” These improvements, however, were paid for by the “generosity of the state

legislature in appropriating the funds for carrying on this needed work.”

15 At this time, there were two other large tracts of land at Cranberry Lake that were not

subdivided. One was owned by the State of New Jersey and the other was a privately owned

120-acre tract known as the Rose Property or Rose Farm. In parts of these two un-subdivided

12

sales restrictions that the CLDC had been placing in its sales deeds cogent (and which will be

discussed infra); and, together with the requirement that a member “cannot resign from

membership so long as he or she continue[d] to own or control property at Cranberry Lake,” and

“must dispose property” only to another member of the Club strikes one as a continuing effort to

control the type of person who could join the CLCC and own or lease property at the Lake. We

understand, that these clauses do not say, “No Jews, no Blacks, or no Catholics of East and

Southern European heritage welcome,” but we do know that such sentiments were prevalent at

that time, and were often reflected in restrictive land covenants throughout New Jersey.16

One week after the CLCC’s Certificate of Incorporation was amended, Susan Calkins

transferred Cabin Springs Boat Dock/Grounds to the CLCC (Deed 363, p.484) on 6/8/37. This

property, which was and continues to be used by the Club’s members who do not own property

adjacent to the Lake, was not purchased nor employed by the Club for use by all lot owners

residing on property located in Cranberry Lake Summer Colony. Approximately 30 years

later, in 1965, the CLCC leased certain lands in conjunction with its operation of a beach house

from the Morris Canal and Banking Co., Trustee for the DEP. In 1990, the lease was

renegotiated; property covered by the lease was expanded to include “a seasonal clubhouse

facility, three docks and a beach area adjacent to Route 206,” “additional property for parking

and recreational purposes such as fishing,” and a pedestrian foot bridge. The lease was set for 25

years; and the CLCC was required to offer “general public membership” to a minimum of 45

families (capped at 60 families, depending on the size of such families). This lease expired, and

DEP has informed us that the CLCC is considered a hold-over tenant. It is our understanding that

since 1988, the DEP required some public membership in the CLCC.

In a deed dated July 24, 2000, Robert L. Dennis transferred to the CLCC additional shore

property and certain easements that were located in the area known as Rose Farms. In such

deed, the CLCC was given the right to charge adjacent owners a “fair proportionate share of

maintenance for the access across the Club property” if such owners were not members of the

CLCC. This deed provision contemplates that the CLCC may have members who did not

own or lease property in the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony, but could own property

elsewhere at Cranberry Lake. Both the 2012 and 2018 Bylaws of the CLCC acknowledge that

tracts, land-lease sites were created for summer cottages. The amended CLCC certificate seems

to want to render persons leasing such sites eligible for membership.

16 Homeowners at Cranberry State Lake United has no interest in making inflamatory

accusations but is just trying to make sense of the manner in which the CLCC was structured.

We acknowledge that the 2012 and 2018 Bylaws of the CLCC include an anti-discrimination

provision, prohibiting the Club from discriminating against “any person or group based on age,

race, gender, religion or country of national origin.” But see Richard Rothstein, The Color of

Law .79 (2017)(restrictive racial sales convenants typically could not be enforced by anyone but

the initial seller, i.e., the developer; “[t]o get around this problem, many subdivision developers

created a community association before putting homes up for initial sale, and they made

membership in it a condition of purchase. Association bylaws of such association usually

included a whites-only clause.”)

13

the community served by the CLCC has always included the following historically designated

areas: Frenche’s Grove, Cabin Springs Park, Weaver House Cove, Weaver House Heights, Della

Heights, Briar Heights, Strawberry Point, Whitney Point, Rose Property, Laurel Cove,

Lackawanna Cove and Cranberry Ledge.17 At some point during its existence, the CLCC took

possession of the Weaver House Cove Beach and docking area, which to the best of our

understanding is currently owned by Byram Township, which also owns the adjacent road. Even

if the shoreline was included in Calkin’s 1922 transfer of property to Drews, who in turn

conveyed it to the CLDC, there is no documentation filed with Sussex County that indicates that

this property was ever formally conveyed to the CLCC.

In addition to the fact that (1) the CLCC did not hold property in common for the benefit

of all owners (or lessees, i.e., tenants) residing in the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony, and (2)

the CLCC’s membership always included persons owning property outside that Colony (residing

in the broader Cranberry Lake community, either on Rose Property or state-owned land),

including since 1988, members of the general public, the deeds held by Summer Colony owners

also indicate that (3) the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony was never structured as a common

interest community, as contemplated by PREDFDA. Not one deed that I have reviewed that

involved land originally transferred from Susan Calkins to Williams Drews to the CLDC in

1922, 1924, 1925 or 1927, and subsequently, to the CLDC’s successors (i.e., two holding

companies, Hiram Calkins, Adele Calkins, Susan Calkins, and finally Roland Price, Jr.) granted

an owner, in common with all other purchases or owners of land in the Cranberry Lake

Summer Colony, access to all property and facilities owned and held by the CLCC.18 If

they had done so, such covenant would support a fair share assessment or a requirement to pay

an assessment to support the improvements, activities or facilities provided by the CLCC; and,

pursuant to the Radburn Law, such easements would require that the property owner be a

member of the club for purposes of electing the governing board of the club. In effect, the

CLCC would be considered a common interest association. But none of the deeds included such

servitudes, and so the democracy provisions of PREDFDA do not apply.

17 In April 1947, a subdivision map was filed with the Township entitled Cranberry Ledge,

Cranberry Lake. There is no indication as to the identity of the developer. Similar to all the maps

filed, but entitled Cranberry Lake Summer Colony, this map did not designate any common

properties or elements.

18 All such deeds did grant the following easement, in common: “ . . . to convey to the

grantee, in common with all other purchasers or owners of land at Cranberry Lake and the

vicinity, such right as the grantor has or ought to have in and on and to the waters of Cranberry

Lake or Cranberry Reservoir.” At the time of the transfer, the Lake was owned by the State of

New Jersey, with the bottom of the Lake owned by the Township, State, and owner of the Rose

Farm property. No portion of the bottom of the Lake was ever owned or its waters controlled by

Mr. Frenche, or transferred to the CLDC or the CLCC. This is probably the single reason why

the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony was not organized as a common interest community; but,

such conclusion is mere speculation.

14

Instead, many, but not all, of the deeds from the CLDC, Susan Calkins or her heir,

Roland Price, Jr. simply restricted the sale or lease of the property to a member of the CLCC;19

while others restricted sale to a “member of the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony.”20 Both

provisions, on their face and in their historical context, strike one, as mentioned supra, as an

unlawful attempt to restrict the “type of people” who could purchase improved or unimproved

land at the Lake or lease cabins already existing.21 Taken literally, the grantee could only sell or

lease one’s property to someone who already owned property in the Summer Colony. This was

the only interpretation, because pursuant to the 1924 Certificate of Incorporation of the CLCC,

no person was entitled to “regular membership in the Association, who [was] not already an

owner of the title to property in the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony.” Prior to the amendment

to the Certificate of Incorporation in 1937, which seems to have been tailored to meet this

problem, the CLCC perhaps permitted another type of membership to capture prospective

purchasers. But further review of all these deeds provides additional evidence on which to base

the conclusion that the “sales restriction,” in both versions, was an effort by Mr. Drews and other

leaders of the CLCC to control who could buy and enjoy the recreational opportunities provided

by Cranberry Lake; which, at the commencement of their development effort, was acquired by

the State for public recreational use, such as fishing, boating and swimming.

All but the 1970 deed listed in note 20 included a provision extinguishing the sales

restriction in the event that the CLCC dissolved. (“These covenants and restrictions and

reservations run with the land, but in the event of the Cranberry Lake Community Club

disbanding or dissolving or ceasing to be in existence[,] after a period of three (3) years, the

party of the second part shall come into her full right or rights without restrictions as to selling,

renting or leasing said lands or buildings thereon.”). This clause proves that the CLCC was not

intended and never functioned as a PRED Association. No common interest community can

sustain the dissolution of the association that is tasked with owning and/or managing the

common property and facilities. Instead, this clause establishes that the CLCC was always

intended to be a civic club that provided summer recreational activities only to property owners

or lessees residing in the Cranberry Lake vicinity who paid membership fees,22 as well as a

19 E.g., CLDC to Bessie Sanford, Cabin Spring Colony, 1925; CLDC to Mary F. Mattes,

Weaver House Heights, 1930; Susan Calkins to Monna Fleischmann, Frenche’s Grove, 1950;

Roland Price, Jr. to Arne and Marie Wilson, Weaver House Heights, 1970.

20 E.g., CLDC to James D. Donnelly, Weaver House Cove, 1926.

21 In 1939, Mr. Spence simply stated: “As all lots were sold on a restricted basis, the natural

beauties of our Lake quickly attracted a very desirable type of settler.” Although most of the

early deeds contained “set-back” restrictions that are now included in municipal land use

ordinances and other health-related restrictions (e.g., no out-house or toilets unless attached to

the dwelling), the restriction to which Mr. Spence referred is most probably the toxic restraint

limiting the person to whom one can sell or lease one’s property—a restraint that I would argue

is unenforceable as against public policy.

22 Mr. Spence notes: “Two tennis courts have already been provided for use of members of

the Club who are in good standing,” those who pay their dues. He goes on to list a host of

15

screening organization, which would try to preserve the “present and future character” of the

community by ensuring that only persons of the right “American stock” would gain admission to

the Club.

It therefore follows, based on the above factual recitation and legal argument, that the

CLCC cannot assess owners of property in any one of the areas surrounding Cranberry Lake for

use of their property nor can it force any of those owners to become a member of the Club. It is

thus the position of the Homeowners at Cranberry State Lake United that they will resist any

legal efforts by the CLCC to place liens on their property, and will defend against any litigation

brought against them seeking a declaration that they must become members of the CLCC. In

fact, NJA has committed to represent members of the group, if the CLCC takes any legal action,

and, based on the foregoing analysis, we will seek sanctions if the CLCC continues to

misinterpret the Radburn Law, and misrepresent the deeds and historical documents governing

the development of the Cranberry Lake Summer Colony, and the greater Cranberry Lake

community.

Thank you for your anticipated consideration of our position. If you have any questions,

do not hesitate to contact me at 973-735-0523.

Respectfully,

NEW JERSEY APPLESEED PUBLIC

INTEREST LAW CENTER

__________________________

Renée Steinhagen, Exec. Dir.

Cc: Eileen McCarthy Born, Esq.

Dolan & Dolan

53 Spring Street

One Legal Lane

Newton, NJ 07860-0106

activities, including “weekly bridge parties” for women members, “formal dances” that attract “the younger element,” as well as “a weekly showing of the latest movies in the Club house” and non-denominational religous services held on Sunday morning.

Via email (renee@njappleseed.org)

New Jersey Appleseed

Public Interest Law Center of New Jersey

Attn: Renee Steinhagen, Esq.

50 Park Place, Suite 1025

Newark, NJ 07102

Re: Cranberry Lake Community Club March 30, 2020

Dear Ms. Steinhagen:

As you know, this office represents Cranberry Lake Community Club (“CLCC"). I am in receipt of your correspondence to Mary Seage, President of CLCC, dated March 2, 2020.

In reference to your assertion that CLCC has “distorted" the Radburn law, I respectfully disagree. In fact, the intent of the so-called Radburn law, which is the 2017 amendments to the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act (“PREDFDA”) could not have been clearer. The language states specifically that “it is necessary and in the public interest for the legislature to enact legislation to amend PREDFDA in order to establish that all unit owners are members of the association and provide basic election participation rights…” N.J.S.A. 45:22A-45.1 (g).

I am aware of only one case which has interpreted the 2017 PREDFDA amendments. In an order granting summary judgment to Ramapo Mountain Lakes, the association of a previously voluntary lake community, Bergen County Superior Court Judge Christine Farrington reviewed the definitions in the statute and found that pursuant to the amendments of PREDFDA, the rights and protections exist regardless of whether a developer established the community prior to the effective date of PREDFDA. Judge Farrington reiterated the intent of the legislature as stated

above and ultimately found that the plain language of the statute is unambiguous and the language and terms should be given their ordinary meaning. The language of the statute made it clear that Ramapo Mountain Lakes was a planned real estate development and that the 2017 and 1993 amendments to PREDFDA applied to Ramapo Mountain Lakes. Your conclusion that the PREDFDA amendments have been somehow distorted is simply not accurate, based on the stated legislative intent, and the Court’s position regarding the law as clearly written.

As to the remainder of your letter, while your analysis of the history of Cranberry Lake has certainly been thorough, your factual interpretation is selective and your conclusions are arbitrary. In reference to your position that CLCC has never owned or maintained commonly held property for the use of the property owners in the Cranberry Lake community, you are incorrect. CLCC both owns and maintains property for the benefit of the community.

From your involvement in the Upper Greenwood Lake matter, I am sure you understand that lake associations in New Jersey, generally formed without an enabling statute, were organized in a variety of the manners. The fact that CLCC does not fit neatly into your interpretation of a planned real estate development does not mean that the property owners in Cranberry Lake do not receive certain benefits from their location within this community and that with the benefit ought to come the burden of the maintenance the property.

On behalf of the Board of Governors, I take particular exception to your quoted language of what is not included in the deeds, “no Jews, no Blacks, no Catholics of East or Southern European heritage welcome." This statement is then ironically footnoted with a statement that your client has no interest in making inflammatory accusations. Suggestions of discrimination are unfounded. This statement is not only inflammatory, it is dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful and a misrepresentation of the facts of this matter, all ethical considerations for a licensed New Jersey attorney. I am aware of no circumstance under which any member of the Board of Governors has discriminated against any property owner of a particular race or religious background. If you are aware of such allegations, I suggest you make them. If not, I suggest you refrain from such comments.

The Board of Governors at CLCC is a group of volunteers who work tirelessly to maintain the lake and common properties for the benefit of the whole community. Their critics benefit from the work they do, which ultimately benefits all the individual properties in the community. It continues to astound me that certain residents feel completely comfortable sitting lakefront at Cranberry Lake, enjoying a well-maintained lake while refusing to contribute their fair share, all the while understanding that their neighbors are paying more because they refuse to contribute.

Please be advised that CLCC will continue to implement a mandatory assessment in the Cranberry Lake community, based on the historic documents, supporting case law and statutes, and your client should be guided accordingly.

Finally, please advise as to the names of the individual members of your client “Homeowners of Cranberry State Lake United” so that I can avoid direct communications with any property owner represented by you as counsel. My client has recently received approximately 35 letters purportedly from property owners claiming to be members of your client’s organization. This can’t be verified because only a handful of the letters are signed or include return addresses (yet still demand their names be removed from the membership list of CLCC).

Very truly yours,

DOLAN & DOLAN, P.A.

Eileen McCarthy Born

Eileen McCarthy Born

EMB/ljb

cc: Mary Seage, President, Cranberry Lake Community Club

New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center of New Jersey 50 Park Place, Suite 1025 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Phone: 973.735.0523 Fax: 973-710-4653 Email: renee@njappleseed.org Website: www.njappleseed.org

April 20, 2020

Eileen McCarthy Born, Esq.

Dolan & Dolan

53 Spring Street

One Legal Lane

Newton, NJ 07860-0106

Re: Cranberry Lake Community Club

Dear Ms. Born:

I want to thank you very much for your March 30, 2020 response to my March 2, 2020 letter. I have not responded sooner due to the pandemic crisis and the difficulty of the key organizers of the Homeowners at Cranberry State Lake United (“HCSLU”) to communicate with the 37 owners who made a financial contribution to the group as well as the 100 or so owners, who have expressed their support. At this time, the following people would like to identify themselves as members of the HCSLU, which is represented by New Jersey Appleseed: Lynn Magee, Daniel Magee, John Garrity, Mark Cerza, Kristine Cerza, Bill Church, Karen Church, David Camborous, Rosalie Camborous, Chih Sowinski, and Mark Sowinski. Other members do not feel comfortable revealing their identity at this time; they understand that the Cranberry Lake Community Club and its counsel will continue to correspond with them in the same manner as it communicates with other homeowners residing in the neighborhoods surrounding the Lake. Notwithstanding the willingness of some members to be identified and others not, I would simply request that you notify New Jersey Appleseed if you intend to place liens on people’s property without first initiating a court action to establish that all the property owners residing in areas identified as the “Cranberry Lake Summer Colony” are obligated, under common law, to pay a fair share assessment to the Club. For as I have said, and I believe you understand, if there is no obligation to pay a fair share assessment to an entity that under common law is considered to be a common interest association, PREDFDA does not apply, and owners are not required to become members of that association.

That brings me to my central point. As the attorney for Ramapo Mountain Lake, Inc., Lake Parsippany Property Owners Association and other private lake common interest lake associations that have successfully litigated the issue of whether such associations (a substantial majority of which incorporated prior to 1977) have the authority to assess all homeowners for maintenance of common property (and, if so, to require them to become a member of such association), I am frankly surprised that in your reply to me, you did not point to any

2

documentary evidence to support your claim that the Cranberry Lake Community Club is a common interest property owners association nor that property owners residing at the Lake have an easement right to use Club property in their deeds.

Rather, you simply assert that the “CLCC both owns and maintains property for the benefit of the community.” There is little doubt that the CLCC owns and maintains property for the benefit of its members, most of who live and reside in the neighborhoods surrounding the Lake. It does not, however, own and maintain its property for the use of all homeowners residing in that community. Furthermore, merely repeating the mantra that with the “benefits comes the burden or responsibility” does not establish what benefits homeowners receive form CLCC ownership of property at the Lake or its use of State or Township property for the exclusive benefit its members. Currently, homeowners pay property taxes to the Township, which owns and maintains the roads in the area, owns trails that have not been vacated by adjacent private owners and owns approximately 1/3 of the Lake bottom; such homeowners also have access to enjoy the Lake in the same manner as any member of the public, unless they own lakefront property. Arguments that prevail in the context of private lake communities, as a matter of law and policy, simply do not pertain to Cranberry Lake neighborhoods. And, I strongly urge you to advise your client to relent in its campaign to compel membership in the Club, because all it is doing is alienating homeowners and ultimately will result in fewer members, not more.

Furthermore, I am especially surprised that you chose to accuse me of an ethical violation rather than provide documentary evidence, such as the original by-laws of the CLCC, to establish that the Club was not set up to screen potential purchasers. Anyone reading my letter would understand that I was trying to explain and make sense of sales restrictions found in the chain of title of most property owners (though absent from most deeds post 1970), written comments made by a local historian as well as the limited mission of the CLCC; not accusing the Club currently of discriminating. In further support of my argument, I refer you to the Color of Law written by Richard Rothstein and published in 2017. In the Chapter entitled “Private Agreements, Government Enforcement.” the author discusses the role of restrictive covenants that typically prohibited resale of property to “any negro or native Ireland.” Id. at 78. He goes on to describe “typical restrictive language” by citing to a 1925 covenant on a property in suburban northern New Jersey” that prohibited maintenance of a structure on the premises “other than a dwelling for people of the Caucasian Race.” Id. Then Mr. Rothstein explains:

The effectiveness of a house deed that contained a racial covenant was limited, however. If a white family sold a property to an African American, it was difficult (although not impossible) for a neighbor to establish standing in court to reverse the sale and have the black family evicted, because the covenant was a contract between the present and previous owner. . .

So increasingly in the twentieth century, racial covenants took the form of a contract among all owners in a neighborhood. Under these conditions, a neighbor could sue if an African American family made a purchase. . . But this was also not satisfactory, because anyone who didn’t sign [the neighborhood contract] might sell to an African American with little fear of being successfully sued.

3

To get around the problem, many subdivision developers created a community association before putting the homes up for initial sale, and they made membership a condition of purchase. Association bylaws usually included a whites-only clause. In the 1920s, this tactic gained national prominence . . . Not only did [the association’s] rules prohibit sales or rentals to black families, but this racial exclusion policy could not be modified without the assent of owners of a majority to the development’s acreage.

Id. at 79 (emphasis added)

Therefore, I respectfully suggest that you undertake a little more research into the role of restrictive racial covenants in Northern New Jersey in the 1920s and 1930s, including the sales restriction found in the deeds sold by Cranberry Lake Development Co., and its successors, before you accuse me of committing an ethical violation. As a land use lawyer, as you additionally are aware, since 1948, such covenants are no longer enforceable, and thus, cannot justify compelling my clients to pay a fair share assessment to such a community association.

Ms. Born, as an advocate for the Radburn homeowners, New Jersey Appleseed supports the inclusion of all property owners, who owe an assessment to a common interest association pursuant to their deeds, as members of such associations; members with full access to financial transparency, open board meetings, voting rights and the ability to nominate themselves to the boards of such associations, without the payment of monies above what is deemed to constitute their assessment. However, New Jersey Appleseed does not support any attempt to compel membership on owners who do not owe such assessment nor to compel owners to pay a membership fee above the assessment owed in order to enjoy their democratic rights guaranteed under PREDFDA. Accordingly, we are prepared to contest your client’s assertion of mandatory membership under the Radburn amendments in the context of Cranberry Lake, a State owned lake, unless you can provide documentary evidence establishing the Club as a common interest association and my clients’ rights to use the Club’s privately held property in their chain of title. As you are aware, Mr. Roland Price, the heir to the properties owned and initially sold by the Cranberry Lake Development Company, shares my client’s view that the Cranberry Lake Community Club was never established nor intended to be a common interest property owners association. He would know, since he and his grandmother continued to sell lots in the Summer Colony area long after the Development Company dissolved.

Thank you for your anticipated consideration of our response. If you would like to talk about this further, do not hesitate to contact me at 212-254-6996.

Sincerely,

NJ Appleseed Public Interest Law Center

Renee Steinhagen, Executive Director