New Jersey Court Clarifies Rooftop Access Rights in Long-Term Telecom Lease Dispute

Background and Procedural History

This case arises out of a decades-long series of agreements involving the rooftop of Ventnor on the Bay Condominium Association, Inc. (“VOTB”), a 10-story, 115-unit building in Ventnor City, New Jersey. Starting in 1995, VOTB leased its entire rooftop to SBA Site Management, LLC (“SBA,” formerly AAT Communications Corporation) for the installation of telecommunications equipment. Over the years, SBA licensed use of the rooftop to entities including New Cingular Wireless PC, LLC (“AT&T”), with agreements amended and renewed multiple times.

In 2014, VOTB sold its rights under the primary lease to LMRK PROPCO 3, LLC (“LMRK”) for $1.3 million, assigning LMRK the right to collect rent from SBA for 99 years. The 2014 agreement included a survey purporting to limit the leased rooftop area.

The dispute began in 2018 when VOTB alleged that telecommunications equipment installations caused roof damage and water intrusion. In 2021, VOTB denied AT&T access to the roof for equipment upgrades, triggering a series of legal maneuvers: Defendants attempted arbitration (later withdrawn), and VOTB filed a Verified Complaint seeking to halt arbitration and assert claims for breach of contract, declaratory relief, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”).

After discovery and failed settlement attempts, the matter was transferred to the Complex Business Litigation Program. The court ultimately addressed dispositive motions and cross-motions for summary judgment.

---

Key Legal Issues Before the Court

The court addressed several focused legal issues:

1. Scope of Rooftop Access: Whether SBA and AT&T are entitled to unlimited access to VOTB’s rooftop under the February 1998 Antenna Site Lease Agreement, or whether their access is limited by the 2014 Purchase and Sale Agreement with LMRK.
2. Declaratory Relief: Whether VOTB’s claim for declaratory relief (Count Two) was viable or duplicative of other claims.
3. Consumer Fraud Act Applicability: Whether VOTB’s CFA claim (Count Seven) could proceed, given the commercial nature of the transactions.
4. Contractual and Procedural Issues: Whether LMRK was entitled to a declaration regarding its own rooftop access, and whether VOTB was entitled to summary judgment on breach of contract claims.

---

Legal Standards Applied

Summary Judgment (Rule 4:46-2; Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (1985)):
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. All inferences are drawn in favor of the non-movant. The court asks whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the non-movant, would permit a rational fact finder to resolve the dispute in their favor.

Contract Interpretation:
Courts enforce contracts as written when terms are clear, focusing on the parties’ intent at the time of drafting. They may consider extrinsic evidence to interpret (but not modify) ambiguous terms (see Pacifico v. Pacifico, 190 N.J. 258 (2007); Conway v. 287 Corporate Ctr. Assoc., 187 N.J. 259 (2006)).

Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA), N.J.S.A. 2A:16-50 et seq.:
The DJA provides relief from uncertainty over rights, but is not a substitute where another adequate remedy exists or where the facts are future, contingent, or uncertain (see Matter of N.J. Firemen's Ass'n, 230 N.J. 258 (2017); Rego Indus., Inc. v. Am. Modern Metals Corp., 91 N.J. Super. 447 (App. Div. 1966)).

New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq.:
To recover under the CFA, a plaintiff must prove (1) unlawful conduct, (2) ascertainable loss, and (3) a causal connection (Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2, 24 (1994)). The CFA applies to consumer transactions, not to arms-length commercial real estate deals between sophisticated parties (Papergraphics Int’l, Inc. v. Correa, 389 N.J. Super. 8 (App. Div. 2006); All the Way Towing, LLC v. Bucks County Int’l, Inc., 236 N.J. 431 (2019)).

---

The Court’s Reasoning and Holdings

1. Rooftop Access: 1998 Lease Controls, Not 2014 Agreement

The court held that the February 1998 Antenna Site Lease Agreement “grants SBA and its licensees exclusive use of the rooftop and limited interior portions for telecommunications equipment, with no limitation to specific areas.” The 2014 Purchase and Sale Agreement’s survey, which attempted to limit the leased area, does not bind SBA or AT&T because they were not parties to that agreement and the 2014 agreement expressly stated it did not modify their rights.

“Courts cannot make contracts for parties. They can only enforce the contracts which the parties themselves have made.” (Kampf v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 33 N.J. 36, 43 (1960))

The court found that VOTB’s attempt to limit access based on the 2014 survey conflicted with the plain language and intent of the 1998 agreement, which referenced “the rooftop and limited interior portions” without limitation. The history of amendments and renewals—including eight amendments to the License Agreement—never altered this definition.

The court also rejected VOTB’s argument that individual condominium owners’ consent was required for such access, holding that the association’s presidents had apparent authority to bind the association, and there was “simply no merit to the demand for proof of the individual owners’ assent.”

2. 2014 Agreement Misrepresentation: Issue Unresolved

The court acknowledged that the 2014 Purchase and Sale Agreement likely contained a misrepresentation regarding the area leased to SBA, but found the record insufficient to determine the impact of this misrepresentation on LMRK’s rights. As a result, motions regarding LMRK’s access were denied without prejudice.

3. Declaratory Relief (Count Two): Dismissed as Duplicative and Inappropriate

The court dismissed VOTB’s declaratory judgment claim with prejudice, reasoning that the DJA is not a proper vehicle for claims that are duplicative of breach of contract or negligence claims, or where the relief sought is not ripe or is better addressed through other causes of action.

“There is ‘no reason to invoke the provisions of the [DJA] where another adequate remedy is available.’” (Rego Indus., 91 N.J. Super. at 453)

4. Consumer Fraud Act (Count Seven): No Application to Commercial Real Estate Leases

The court dismissed VOTB’s CFA claim with prejudice, holding that the CFA does not apply to these arms-length commercial real estate transactions between sophisticated parties. The court found no evidence of consumer-oriented conduct or deceptive practices.

“The CFA does not apply to all transactions; it applies to consumer transactions for goods, services, or real estate typically offered to the public at large...In short, the CFA does not apply to any of the transactions implicated by this matter.”

5. Other Breach of Contract Claims: Denied Without Prejudice

The court denied both VOTB’s and LMRK’s motions for summary judgment on breach of contract claims, citing incomplete factual records, particularly regarding alleged roof damage and the effects of the 2014 agreement’s misrepresentation.

---

Practical Implications for New Jersey Businesses

This opinion offers several key lessons for New Jersey businesses, property owners, and commercial tenants:

• Contract Language Controls: Courts will enforce clear, unambiguous contract terms “as written”—even decades later. Attempts to limit or expand rights via subsequent agreements (to which a party is not bound) will fail.
• Assignments Do Not Alter Existing Lease Rights: An assignment of lease or sale of rights (as with VOTB’s 2014 sale to LMRK) does not, by itself, alter the rights of the original contracting parties unless expressly agreed.
• Apparent Authority of Association Leadership: Condominium associations act through their elected leaders. Third parties can generally rely on the authority of those officers to bind the association, absent evidence to the contrary.
• Consumer Protections Are Limited in Commercial Deals: The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to sophisticated, arms-length commercial real estate transactions. Businesses cannot rely on consumer protection statutes for disputes arising from such deals.
• Declaratory Relief Is Not a Catch-All: The DJA cannot be used as a substitute for contract or negligence claims, especially where those claims provide adequate remedies.

---

Actionable Takeaways for Business Owners and Counsel

1. Draft and Review Contracts Carefully: Ensure lease and assignment agreements clearly describe the rights and property interests involved. Ambiguities in property descriptions or access rights can lead to costly disputes, but courts will default to the plain language of the controlling contract.
2. Assignment and Sale Agreements Must Respect Existing Rights: When acquiring or assigning rights under a lease or easement, verify that all parties’ rights and obligations are accurately described and that no representations contradict existing agreements.
3. Rely on Apparent Authority (but Document It): When dealing with associations or corporate entities, confirm that the individuals signing have authority to bind the entity—and document that authority.
4. Do Not Rely on Consumer Protection Statutes in Commercial Transactions: For commercial property deals, remedies will lie in contract or tort law, not under the CFA or similar statutes.
5. Use the Proper Legal Vehicle for Each Claim: If seeking damages for property damage, assert a negligence or breach of contract claim—not duplicative declaratory relief.
6. Preserve Evidence of Damages and Breach: If alleging property damage or breach, maintain thorough documentation and be prepared for fact-intensive litigation. Courts will not grant summary judgment where material facts are disputed or undeveloped.

---

Conclusion

This decision from the Complex Business Litigation Program underscores the primacy of contract terms and the limited reach of consumer protections in sophisticated commercial real estate transactions. If you are a property owner, association, or commercial tenant facing similar issues—or seeking to avoid them—consult with experienced legal counsel to ensure your contracts, assignments, and claims are properly structured and enforced.

If your business faces a dispute over commercial property rights or contract interpretation, contact our firm for a thorough review and strategic guidance tailored to your situation.