The Law Journal’s Nov. 30 article about the reaction to the recent Appellate Division ruling in Sullivan v. Max Spann Real Estate & Auction Co. (“Real Estate Attorneys Weigh In on Ruling Affecting Attorney Review Period for Auctions”) misses the central point of the case. I should know, because I represented the buyer in the appeal, which is now headed to the New Jersey Supreme Court as a result of the dissenting opinion of Judge Fuentes.

The issue in the case is not whether the three-day attorney review period is generally applicable to auctions. Real estate auctions have long taken place, probably since antiquity, and serve an important function. Nothing about our appeal would change the character of auctions, or generally apply a three-day attorney review period to them, contrary to what some of the attorneys quoted in the article seem to have erroneously assumed.