THE HUNTERDON DISTRICT SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INC v. NEW JERSEY SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-2797-16T3

THE HUNTERDON DISTRICT
SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION
OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INC.,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY SOCIETY FOR THE
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO
ANIMALS,

     Defendant-Respondent.
____________________________

              Argued April 23, 2018 – Decided May 14, 2018

              Before Judges Sumners and Moynihan.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Hunterdon County, Docket No.
              L-0527-16.

              Daniel S. Makoski argued the cause for
              appellant (Gebhardt & Kiefer, PC, attorneys;
              Daniel S. Makoski, on the brief).

              Harry Jay Levin argued the cause for
              respondent (Levin Cyphers, attorneys; Harry
              Jay Levin and Ronald J. Bakay, on the brief).

PER CURIAM
       Plaintiff, The Hunterdon District Society for the Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. (Hunterdon), appeals from the trial

court's order denying its order to show cause, and compelling its

payment of fees to defendant, The New Jersey Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NJ SPCA).       After discovering the

cessation of mail service to its offices, Hunterdon learned NJ

SPCA    had    filed   a    change-of-address   request   that   rerouted

Hunterdon's mail to NJ SPCA's headquarters.        Hunterdon's order to

show cause sought the return of mail that had been redirected to

NJ SPCA and restraints against further redirection.

       In an oral decision, the trial court noted the parties'

litigious history.         NJ SPCA had previously sought and obtained

emergent relief in July 2015: affirming its revocation of the

county charter it had granted to Hunterdon; requiring Hunterdon

to cede all of its assets pursuant to 
N.J.S.A. 4:22-11.4(j); and

ordering Hunterdon to cease operations as a chartered county SPCA. 1



1 N.J.S.A. 4:22-11.4(d) – until its anticipated repeal on August
1, 2018 – vests authority in NJ SPCA's board of trustees (board),
by a majority vote, to "revoke, cancel or suspend" SPCA charters
granted by the board pursuant to 
N.J.S.A. 4:22-11.4(c). 
N.J.S.A.
4:22-11.4(j) mandated the board

              [h]old in escrow any assets . . . of a county
              society that . . . has its charter revoked,
              canceled, or suspended for any reason until a
              new county society for that county is formed
              and chartered or the revoked, canceled, or


                                     2                            A-2797-16T
3 In July 2016 a subsequent order was entered declaring Hunterdon's

certificate of incorporation (COI) still valid notwithstanding the

revocation of its SPCA charter which, the court ruled, had "no

effect" on the COI.          That same order also provided: "Should

[Hunterdon] seek to accept and solicit contributions as a non-

profit corporation, [it] may do so but not using its current name

or any name including 'SCPA' or 'Society for the Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals.'"

     The   trial    court    considered    those   orders    and       concluded,

"Hunterdon County SPCA does not exist.          It has no property rights

or any standing to bring a motion.           The motion is denied."

     "Standing is a threshold requirement for justiciability."

Watkins v. Resorts Int'l Hotel & Casino, 
124 N.J. 398, 421 (1991).

The issue of standing is a question of law, over which we conduct

a de novo review.      See In re Middlesex Reg'l Educ. Servs. Comm'n

Name Change Request, ___ N.J. Super. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op. at

3); People For Open Gov't v. Roberts, 
397 N.J. Super. 502, 508

(App. Div. 2008).

     We    agree    with    Hunterdon's    argument      that,    as    a     valid

corporation,   it    had    standing   and    reverse.      The    Legislature

conferred on each corporation the power "to sue and be sued,


           suspended charter for the county is restored
           . . . .

                                       3                                    A-2797-16T3
complain and defend and participate as a party or otherwise in any

judicial, administrative, arbitrative or other proceeding, in its

corporate name."     
N.J.S.A. 14A:3-1(1)(b).        As recognized by the

judge who entered the July 2016 order, although Hunterdon's SPCA

charter was revoked, its corporate charter was not.              As such it

had statutory standing to seek redress for the redirection of its

mail.

      We do not pass on the merits of its application – yet to be

considered by the trial court.      And while we acknowledge Hunterdon

is   prohibited   under   the   terms   of   the   July   2016   order   from

soliciting contributions under any name that includes "Society for

the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" or its acronym, we see no

judicial or other compulsion to change its name, or to cease

operations other than those as a chartered SPCA.

      We also vacate the award of fees; of course, the trial court

is free to revisit this issue on the application of either party,

depending on the results of further proceedings.

      Reversed and remanded.     We do not retain jurisdiction.




                                    4                                A-2797-16T3