BLOG: Condemnation Law
Neptune Proposes Eminent Domain Ban
The Neptune Township Committee introduced an ordinance this week which would restrict the township’s use of its eminent domain powers in municipal redevelopment areas. The proposed ordinance would allow eminent domain to continue where the taking is required for “traditional” public use or public purposes, but would ban takings for redevelopment purposes where the properties... Read More
Property Owner's Challenge to Redevelopment Testing Dismissed as Moot
A New Jersey appellate court dismissed a property owner’s challenge to redevelopment activities in the Town of Kearny on the basis that the appeal was moot. Town of Kearny v. RLR Investments, Inc., Docket No. A-3174-07T2 (read the opinion here). The property owner, RLR Investments, owns and operates a commercial trucking terminal which is located in... Read More
Court Disapproves Averaging of Comparable Sales
A New Jersey appellate court recently held that a trial judge’s practice of averaging comparable sales in fixing the fair market value of real property is an improper valuation practice. In Pansini Custom Design Assocs. v. City of Ocean City, Docket No. A-2003-07T1, the plaintiffs owned a single family residence at the Jersey shore, which was... Read More
Morris County Jury Awards $1.2 Million for Taking of Auto Body Shop
A Morris County jury awarded $1.2 million last week to the owners of an auto body shop on Route 46 in Dover for the taking of that property by the New Jersey Department of Transportation by eminent domain. The civil jury rendered a unanimous verdict of $1.2 million to Peter and Maria Kavrazonis as just compensation... Read More
North Arlington Ordered to Return Monies to Redeveloper on Failed Project
The Borough of North Arlington was ordered by New Jersey Superior Court Judge Jonathan Harris to return $2.4 million to Cherokee Investment Partners, which was a private redeveloper previously designated to undertake a municipal redevelopment project on Porete Avenue in the Borough. The ruling resulted from a trial which lasted for 5 days in March of... Read More
Vineland Reduces Eminent Domain Threat
This week, the Vineland City Council approved a reduction of the potential use of eminent domain on a municipal redevelopment project involving properties at the intersection of East and Landis avenues. The project had originally included all four corners of the intersection, but the recent change of heart by the City will now exclude the corner where... Read More
New Jersey Supreme Court Confirms Award of Counsel Fees as Mandatory in Abandonment of Condemnation
In a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Virginia Long, the Court confirmed the mandatory nature of attorneys’ fees awards in condemnation actions where the condemnor abandons the the taking. Township of West Orange v. 769 Associates, et als, (A-113-07, April 9, 2009). The Supreme Court reversed an Appellate Division ruling that limited... Read More
Red Bank Considers Eminent Domain Ban
Another Monmouth County municipality is considering adopting a policy restricting the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes within its borders. The Borough of Red Bank has proposed adopting an ordinance which would prohibit its mayor and council from using the power of eminent domain to acquire privately owned property in any redevelopment area created in... Read More
$3.2 Million Settlement Obtained for Water Rights
The Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority agreed to pay $3,200,000 for a 35 acre tract of land in Roxbury, Wharton and Jefferson townships formerly owned by Farley Waterworks, LLC, which the MUA had condemned in 2003 for the specific purpose of using the property’s groundwater to supply drinking water to its customers. The MUA’s initial offer estimated... Read More
Mortgage Lender's Recovery of Interest on Condemned Parcel Limited by Appellate Court
On February 10, 2009, a New Jersey appellate court limited the rights of a mortgage lender to receive interest on property taken by eminent domian, upon which the lender held a mortgage at the time of the taking. The appeals panel ruled that the mortgage lender was only entitled to receive, in satisfaction of its mortgage,... Read More
