BOB MEYER COMMUNITIES, INC. et al. v. STONE HARBOR LAKES, LLC

(NOTE: The status of this decision is published.)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6190-05T16190-05T1

BOB MEYER COMMUNITIES, INC.

and THOMPSON HOMES, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

STONE HARBOR LAKES, LLC, TRIAD

III, LLC, WILLIAM P. BOWMAN,

APACHE DEVELOPMENT, LLC and GORDON

SHAFFNER,

Defendants-Respondents.

_______________________________

 

Submitted December 18, 2007 - Decided

 
Remanded by Supreme Court May 6, 2008.

Resubmitted May 16, 2008 - Decided

Before Judges Fuentes, Grall and Chambers.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County,

Docket No. L-000001-06.

Flaster/Greenberg P.C., attorneys for appellants Bob Meyer Communities, Inc. and Thompson Homes, Inc. (Kenneth S. Goodkind and Vincent J. Nolan, III, on the brief).

Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, LLP,

attorneys for respondents Stone Harbor

Lakes, LLC, Apache Development, LLC and

Gordon Shaffner (Ralph P. Ferrara and Myles

A. Seidenfrau, on the brief).

Levine, Staller, Sklar, Chan, Brown &

Donnelly, P.A., attorneys for respondents

Triad III, LLC and William P. Bowman (Brian J. Cullen, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In a decision issued on January 22, 2008, we dismissed, as interlocutory, plaintiffs' appeal from an order that dismissed their complaint. The dismissal was "without prejudice subject only to enforcement of [the] arbitration award." On May 6, 2008, the Supreme Court granted plaintiff's petition for certification and "summarily remanded to the Appellate Division to reconsider in light of Wein v. Morris," 194 N.J. 364 (App. Div. 2008).

In pertinent part Wein holds:

To avoid further uncertainty in this area, and to provide a uniform procedure, we find it appropriate to deem an order compelling arbitration a final judgment appealable as of right. That is, whether the court in compelling arbitration dismisses the action as part of a final order or stays the matter, the order will be deemed final and appealable as of right. In our view, that will provide uniformity, promote judicial economy, and assist the speedy resolution of disputes.

Rule 2:2-3(a) governs interlocutory and final appeals. That rule also delineates various orders that are deemed final. We exercise our rulemaking authority and amend Rule 2:2-3(a) to add an order of the court compelling arbitration to the list of orders that shall be deemed final judgments for appeal purposes. . . . Previously there was no uniform approach to the treatment of such orders. Because this is a new rule, we find it appropriate to apply it purely prospectively and not to the parties of this appeal.

[Id. at 380 (emphasis added).]

Because the Court has held that the new rule of finality established in Wein applies prospectively, it does not apply to this appeal, which was dismissed as interlocutory prior to the Supreme Court's decision. Accordingly, after reconsideration in light of Wein, we see no basis for modification of our decision.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6190-05T1

January 22, 2008

May 22, 2008