NJ Supreme Court Agrees to Hear "Bizarre" Condemnation Case

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently granted a petition for certification filed by the property owners who alleged unsuccessfully before the Law Division, and the Appellate Division, that the municipality was required by law to provide them access to “their property.”

The case has been described by Henry Gottlieb of the New Jersey Law Journal as a “bizarre” condemnation because the appellate court’s ruling essentially provides that the government, not the property owner can assert inverse condemnation in order to take property without compensation.  Read more from the New Jersey Law Journal here.

The property owners constructed a house on their property in Avalon in 1960, and it was destroyed (like many others) in a 1962 ‘Nor-Easter’.  Thereafter, the municipality actively sought to replenish the dune areas , which was accomplished by 1965.  The municipality continued to maintain the dune areas since that time, but also continued to tax the private property owners along the shoreline.

In 1997, that the property owners contacted the municipality to complain about the regulations that “made it impossible for [them] to rebuild their summer home.”  And, “[b]y construction of the dune and adoption of the various related ordinances, the Borough exercised exclusive possession and control over the property.”  The trial court found that “that inverse condemnation has occurred, and that the Borough is the true owner of the property.”  The Appellate Division agreed with this finding.

However, the appellate court affirmed the trial judge’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims “for access, damages for trespass, and ejectment because plaintiffs’ bare legal title alone could not “support” those claims.”

In sum, although the owner’s property was taken without just compensation, both courts found that they were not entitled to a remedy for the taking probably because the property owner was trying to force the municipality to provide them access to “their ‘duned’ property”, which the law would not require since the court found that the municipality owned the property.

Oral argument has not yet been scheduled by the New Jersey Supreme Court.  Stay tuned.

More information about this case is available on the Inverse Condemnation Blog, which can be accessed here.