07-4-4126 Hermanns v. Hermanns, N.J. Chancery Div. (Contillo, P.J. Ch.) (23 pp.) Plaintiff sought to amend his complaint to add claims in his action against his father over a family company. Defendant father was sole shareholder of family company. Plaintiff served as company president. Plaintiff alleged he quit teaching and began working at family company at father’s request and that father repeatedly assured him that he had “sweat equity” in the company and a “secure job.” In 2016, father told plaintiff that he had Alzheimer’s and both met with father’s attorney to discuss transferring ownership of company to plaintiff. The process ended with plaintiff ousted from company. Plaintiff sought to supplement his allegations seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief by adding a claim for unjust enrichment and asserting he was promised lifetime employment and “sweat equity.” Plaintiff argued there was no prejudice to defendant since the new allegations arose from the same facts and events. Defendant argued that plaintiff’s new claims were futile since his allegation of an oral agreement to inherit the business was not cognizable in New Jersey and plaintiff failed to plead the elements of a claim for unjust enrichment. The court allowed the amendment asserting a promise of lifetime employment and claiming unjust enrichment but denied the claim of a right to “succeed” to the business. [Filed Aug. 23, 2017]
07-5-4135 Conley v. Twp. of Ocean, Tax Ct. (Sundar, J.T.C.) (5 pp.) Township moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint as untimely. County Board of Taxation issued a judgment dated Feb. 28, 2017, affirming a property assessment and noting that the mailing date was March 14, 2017. All state offices were closed on March 14, 2017, due to a declaration of a state of emergency due to a winter storm. Plaintiff filed a complaint on May 2, 2017, which was one day beyond the 45-day deadline if the time limit was counted from March 14, 2017. The assistant tax administrator testified that the County Tax Board was open on March 14 and employees were present. However, the employees who reported to work that day were not the employees responsible for picking up the mail bin and delivering it to the post office. Thus, the court could not make a “reasonable inference” that the mail placed in the mail bin was delivered to the post office on that day and that the date given was the date on which the judgment was actually mailed. The start date for the 45-day appeal period could not be deemed to be March 14, 2017. [Filed Aug. 24, 2017]
