Broker Denied Right to Intervene in Condemnation Case
Brokerage Fee Issue Considered “Peripheral”
A trial court’s decision to deny a real estate broker’s motion to intervene into an existing condemnation action to argue for a brokers fee was affirmed after the Appellate Division found “those issues have nothing to do with adjudicating the fair market value of the property as determined by the procedures set forth in the [Eminent Domain Act].” The broker argued it should have been permitted to intervene based upon “an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action.” The property owner countered that the broker was wrongfully seeking “prejudgment attachment of the condemnation proceeds to ‘secure’ its unliquidated . . . claim for a commission.”
Without examining the merits of the broker’s claims, which the court noted was pending in a separate action at the trial court level, the Appellate Division found that the broker’s ability to protect its interests were not impeded or impaired by denying it the opportunity to participate in the condemnation action. Moreover, the alleged commission claim only related to the ultimate price paid for the property, and was peripheral to the only issue in the condemnation action – determining just compensation for the subject property “by what a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree to, neither being under any compulsion to act.” Finally, the court noted that the broker’s intervention would delay the condemnation trial.
A copy of the Appellate Division’s opinion in City of Jersey City v. Liberty Storage, LLC, A-4111-09T2 (January 20, 2011) can be found here.
The property owner in this case, Liberty Storage, LLC, was represented by McKirdy & Riskin’s Thomas Olson, John H. Buonocore, Jr., and Cory K. Kestner.
