Quick Answer
In Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Association, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided on July 26, 2007 that a large planned community's sign rules, which allowed one sign in any window and a second sign in a flower bed near the home, did not violate the State Constitution's free speech guarantee. The Court treated those limits as relatively minor. It also said its holding does not mean residents can never win a free speech challenge against an association that "unreasonably infringes" speech.
The case is best read together with a later Supreme Court decision, Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners' Association v. Khan (2012), which struck down a near-total sign ban.
At a Glance
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case | Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Ass'n, 192 N.J. 344, 929 A.2d 1060 (2007) |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Jersey; opinion by Justice Wallace |
| Argued and decided | Argued January 4, 2007; decided July 26, 2007 |
| Question | Whether association rules on posting signs, using the community room and access to the association newsletter violated the State Constitution's free expression guarantees |
| Test applied | The three-factor test from State v. Schmid and the balancing test from New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp. |
| Sign result | The sign limits were found reasonable and not a constitutional violation, as the Court itself later described the decision |
| Statutes mentioned | N.J.S.A. 45:22A-44(b) (as discussed in later Supreme Court opinion) |
The Dispute
Twin Rivers is a large planned residential community run by a homeowners' association. A group of residents formed a committee to try to change how the association governed the development, and sued to invalidate several association rules. The 2012 Supreme Court opinion in Mazdabrook, which describes the case in detail, reports that the sign policy existed to "avoid the clutter of signs" and "preserve the aesthetic value of the common areas."
That policy limited residents to one sign in any window of their home and a second sign in a flower bed no more than three feet from the residence. The complaint also challenged rules on use of the community room and on access to the association's monthly newspaper.
The opening paragraph of the opinion states the question as whether the rules "violated our state constitutional guarantees of free expression." The same excerpt says the trial court held the rules were not subject to the right of free speech.
What the Court Held
Reading note: the full text of the Twin Rivers opinion could not be retrieved for this page. What follows is limited to the opinion's caption and opening paragraph, plus the New Jersey Supreme Court's own description of Twin Rivers in its 2012 Mazdabrook opinion. We did not independently confirm the Court's treatment of the community room and newsletter rules, so this page does not state those outcomes.
The framework
New Jersey's constitution protects free speech more broadly than the First Amendment, and in certain settings it reaches private property owners. In Twin Rivers the Court applied the three Schmid factors and the more general balancing test from the Coalition case.
The three factors, as the Court later summarized them
- Nature and primary use of the property. Twin Rivers is a common-interest community whose primary use is residential and private.
- Invitation to the public. Even though the community was accessible to public traffic, the association "ha[d] not invited the public to use its property."
- Fairness of the restrictions. The Court weighed the restrictions against the residents' free speech rights. It found the association's private property interest stronger than the interests in earlier cases involving a university and shopping centers, and found the sign limits "minor" because they restricted the number and placement of signs but still permitted expression.
Result on the sign rules
On balance the Court found the sign restrictions were not unreasonable and did not violate the State Constitution. It noted an added complication: the sign rules affected homeowners' own property as well as association property, and for signs on a homeowner's property "it is the private homeowner's property and not that of the Association that is impacted."
The limit the Court placed on its own ruling
The Court wrote: "Our holding does not suggest, however, that residents of a homeowners' association may never successfully seek constitutional redress against a governing association that unreasonably infringes their free speech rights."
Covenants and public policy
The Mazdabrook opinion also reports two statements from Twin Rivers. First, restrictive covenants set by associations that unreasonably limit speech and association rights could be challenged under subsection (b) of N.J.S.A. 45:22A-44. Second, "restrictive covenants that unreasonably restrict speech" may be "declared unenforceable as a matter of public policy."
Why It Matters for Associations
- Limits on sign number and placement survived. The upheld policy capped the number of signs and where they could go. It did not ban signs.
- Total bans did not survive later. In Mazdabrook (decided June 13, 2012), the Court held an association's policy that barred nearly all signs, except one "For Sale" sign, violated the State Constitution as applied to a homeowner's political sign in his own window. The Court there said an association may adopt reasonable time, place and manner limits, and that reasonable restrictions "should be clearly written in advance and made known to the relevant community."
- Unwritten approval standards are a risk. In Mazdabrook the Court faulted a rule that let the board approve signs with no written criteria.
- Our reading: a sign policy is more likely to look like the Twin Rivers policy than the Mazdabrook policy if it limits number, size and placement in writing and does not ban a category of speech. Whether a particular policy is lawful depends on its text, the governing documents and counsel's advice. These cases are about the State Constitution and association rules, not about every sign or flag question.
- Open question: how the two cases apply to flags, banners, and signs in common areas versus on an owner's own unit is fact specific. This page does not resolve it.
Related New Jersey Law
- N.J.S.A. 45:22A-48.1: U.S. flag, yellow ribbons and troop-support signs
- N.J.S.A. 45:22A-45.2: executive board elections
- New Jersey HOA laws and regulations
- Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners' Association v. Khan (N.J. 2012), discussed above
Board Checklist
- Pull your current sign, flag and banner rules and read them against the Twin Rivers limits (number, placement) and the Mazdabrook problem (near-total ban).
- Check whether any rule bans an entire category of speech, such as all political signs.
- Make sure approval standards for signs are in writing, adopted in advance, and distributed to owners.
- Apply sign rules evenly. Do not pick among political messages.
- Separate rules about the owner's own unit from rules about common areas.
- Review the flag statute (N.J.S.A. 45:22A-48.1) with counsel before enforcing any flag rule.
- Ask counsel to review the policy before sending violation notices or fines over signs.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Twin Rivers say associations can ban political signs?
No. As the Court later described it, the Twin Rivers policy allowed signs, with limits on number and placement. In Mazdabrook the Court struck down a near-total ban that included political signs.
What sign rules did the Twin Rivers association have?
According to the Supreme Court's 2012 description, one sign in any window of the home and a second sign in a flower bed no more than three feet from the residence.
Does the case apply to condominiums as well as HOAs?
The Court in Twin Rivers analyzed a planned community run by a homeowners' association. Whether and how the reasoning applies to a particular condominium is a question for counsel. This page does not address it.
Can an HOA ever be held to the free speech clause?
The Court wrote that residents may succeed in a challenge against an association that unreasonably infringes their free speech rights, and it applied that reasoning in Mazdabrook.
Can a board require approval before a sign goes up?
The Court in Mazdabrook criticized a board approval requirement with no written standards. It did not rule that every approval process is unlawful. Our reading: written, advance criteria reduce the risk.
Is this case the same as the New Jersey flag law?
No. The flag, yellow ribbon and troop-support sign law is a statute (N.J.S.A. 45:22A-48.1). Twin Rivers is a constitutional case. Both may matter for a given dispute.
Where This Comes From
We read the caption and opening paragraph of the Twin Rivers opinion (192 N.J. 344), and the New Jersey Supreme Court's opinion in Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners' Association v. Khan (decided June 13, 2012), which describes and applies Twin Rivers. We did not read the full Twin Rivers opinion, so pin cites and the treatment of the community room and newsletter rules are omitted. Anyone relying on the case should read the full opinion.
How APM Helps
Association Property Managers provides remote HOA and condo management for associations in New Jersey, starting at a flat $99/month per community with no per-door fees or long-term contracts. See remote management in New Jersey, browse every New Jersey state-law guide, or request a free proposal, delivered within three business days. Laws and licensing rules differ by state, and we confirm the requirements for New Jersey when we build your proposal.
Legal disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws change and associations differ. Confirm the current statute text and how it applies to your governing documents with a licensed New Jersey attorney before acting.
Ready to work with Association Property Managers?
Get a free, itemized proposal for your community — delivered within 3 business days.
Request a Free Proposal