{"id":622,"date":"2012-06-26T19:10:00","date_gmt":"2012-06-26T19:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/?p=622"},"modified":"2023-12-21T17:17:04","modified_gmt":"2023-12-21T17:17:04","slug":"homeowners-association-sign-regulations-violate-free-speech-rights-under-state-constitution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2012\/06\/26\/homeowners-association-sign-regulations-violate-free-speech-rights-under-state-constitution\/","title":{"rendered":"Homeowners’ Association sign regulations violate free speech rights under state constitution"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held in\u00a0Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Khan<\/a>, \u2014 A.3d \u2014, 2012 WL 2120868 (N.J. 2012), that the free speech clause of the state constitution guarantees the right to post political signs on one’s property and that any covenants or rules of a homeowners association to the contrary are unenforceable. The owner in this case posted a sign inside the window of his townhouse and a second sign inside his door. Those signs supported his own candidacy for town council. The Association’s rules banned all signs other than “for sale signs.” The court distinguished its earlier ruling in Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Ass’n, 929 A.2d 1060 (N.J. 2007), which upheld minor restrictions on sign placement by property owners who were members of the association and did not involve an election to a state or local public office as was the the case in\u00a0Mazdabrook<\/em>. Conversely, because the sign was on Khan’s own property, and not common property managed by the association, his interests were stronger. The ruling was premised on prior cases interpreting New Jersey’s free speech clause to apply to private actors on private property in at least some instances, a ruling at odds with the First Amendment which only applies to the federal government or “state actors” through the Fourteenth Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n

Consumer Protection<\/a>, <\/span>Real Estate Transactions<\/a>, <\/span>Servitudes<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held in\u00a0Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Khan, \u2014 A.3d \u2014, 2012 WL 2120868 (N.J. 2012), that the free speech clause of the state constitution guarantees the right to post political signs on one’s property and that any covenants or rules of a homeowners association to the contrary are unenforceable. The owner in this case posted a sign inside the window of his townhouse and a second sign inside his door. Those signs supported his own candidacy for town council. The Association’s rules banned all signs other than “for sale signs.” The court distinguished its earlier ruling in Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Ass’n, 929 A.2d 1060 (N.J. 2007), which upheld minor restrictions on sign placement by property owners who were members of the association and did not involve an election to a state or local public office as was …<\/p>\n

Homeowners’ Association sign regulations violate free speech rights under state constitution<\/span> Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9,10,35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-622","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-consumer-protection","category-real-estate-transactions","category-servitudes"],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"jsinger","author_link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/author\/jsinger\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/622","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=622"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/622\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=622"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=622"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=622"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}