Rowan University’s appraiser initially valued the property at $2.8 million, however, nine months after the complaint was filed, Rowan attempted to reduce its offer to $2.35 million. Prior to the start of trial, Mr. Duggan was successful in having the new appraisal stricken, which resulted in Rowan University being forced to rely upon its initial appraisal of $2.8 million.
 

The property owner’s appraiser opined to a value of $4,580,000. The jury listened to the testimony of four experts (two appraisers and two architects), and several fact witnesses, and rendered a verdict of $4,450,000.

On June 26, 2009,  the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (“NJTA”) filed a complaint seeking to acquire property containing an office building and a double-sided billboard.  The billboard was owned by an outdoor advertising company who leased part of the property from the owner to construct the billboard.  The billboard company opposed the taking arguing that the billboard was real property and, as a result, the NJTA was required to enter into bona fide negotiations to purchase the billboard prior to filing suit.   The outdoor advertising company’s argument was based primarily upon N.J.S.A: 20:3-2-(d), which defines property as:
 

Land, or any interest in land, and (1) any building, structure or other improvement imbedded or affixed to land, and any article so affixed or attached to such building, structure or improvement as to be an essential and integral part thereof, (2) any article affixed or attached to such property in such manner that it cannot be removed without material injury to itself or to the property, (3) any article so designed, constructed, or specifically adapted to the purpose for which such property is used that (a) it is an essential accessory or part of such property; (b) it is not capable of use elsewhere; and (c) would lose substantially all its value if removed from such property.
 

The outdoor advertising company argued that its billboard, which stood 43 feet tall above the ground and was imbedded in the ground in a 20 x 20 x 5 foot slab of concrete, was an “improvement imbedded or affixed to the land” and thus compensable property.  The property owner and NJTA disagreed and argued that the billboard was personal property.
 

The Appellate Division reviewed the statutory definition of property and concluded that the key issue is not how the billboard is attached to the property, but whether it is an “essential and integral part of the land.”  In reviewing the facts before the court, the Appellate Division agreed with the property owner which argued that a billboard is not part and parcel to the property, “but merely a trade fixture owned by LaMar that is located on the property.”  The Court also found that the specific language in the lease stating that the “landlord agrees that the sign shall remain tenant’s personal property” clearly shows that the outdoor advertising company “never considered the billboard as real property and reserved its right to remove the billboard at anytime during the terms of the lease.”

Although billboard cases may not be as common as one would think, the decision clearly stresses the importance of evaluating all potential rights being acquired in a condemnation case.  The analysis must include an extensive review of the applicable statutes and case law, and a thorough understanding of real property law.

Recently, the Appellate Division reversed a trial court judge who held that the property owner was limited to the judgment rate of interest on the additional award of just compensation.  The property owner wanted to present evidence of a more reasonable rate of interest, (10 year treasury rate plus 290 basis points) which was much higher than the judgment rate of interest.  At stake was an additional $500,000 for the property owner.

   

The Appellate Division agreed with the property owner and held that the judgment rate of interest is not controlling in eminent domain cases.  Rather, the court held that the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine the applicable rate of interest.  The Appellate Division did not think an evidentiary hearing was not required in all cases and that under certain circumstances, the trial court can make its determination based upon certifications.  However, in this case, an evidentiary hearing was merited.

   

This case is an important decision for larger cases where there are substantial amounts of time between the filing of a complaint and the ultimate conclusion of the case.  In this particular case, the complaint was filed on March 7, 2001, funds deposited on May 3, 2001, but the award was not finally confirmed until March 28, 2008.  The property owner was entitled to just additional interest which accrued over approximately 7 years.

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey recently affirmed a trial court’s decision finding that the property owner was without recourse when its tenant was relocated and the New Jersey School Construction Corporation (“NJSCC”) decided not to acquire the property.  R.A.R. Development v. Associates v. New Jersey Schools Constr. Corp., 2008 WL 2663403 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2009).  In this particular case, NJSCC targeted a property for acquisition in order to build a new school.  After making an offer to acquire the property but before filing a condemnation complaint, NJSCC agreed to relocate a commercial tenant located at the property in question.  Since the relocation was going to take more than one year at a cost of approximately $5 million, NJSCC did not want to wait for the condemnation complaint to be filed before starting the relocation process.  When the move was almost complete, NJSCC decided not to acquire the property.  The property owner was extremely upset since it lost a tenant occupying over 100,000 square feet of space.
 

The property owner filed a lawsuit against the NJSCC alleging several causes of action, including tortuous interference with contractual and economic advantage, estoppel and inverse condemnation.  In terms of the tortuous interference claims, the court found that the NJSCC acted in good faith and pursuant to its statutory rights since New Jersey law permits the relocation of tenants prior to acquiring property by eminent domain (subject to certain requirements).  In terms of the estoppel argument, the court found that the property owner did not rely to its detriment on any representations of the NJSCC concerning the relocation of its tenants.  Finally, the court dismissed the inverse condemnation claim finding that the lease was at the end of its term (1 month remaining at the time the tenant completed its move) and the tenant had paid all rent due through the term of the lease.  In rejecting the property owner’s agreement that it was entitled to compensation for the taking of its renewal option, the court held that a “landlord’s expectation that the tenant will exercise the right of renewal does not confer on the landlord a recognized property interest subject to just compensation for its taking.”
 

The property owner in this case was harmed, but without recourse.  When negotiating with a condemning authority, one must keep in mind that New jersey law allows a condemning authority to change its mind at various stages of the process with little regard for the property owner’s rights.

This is a very important case for property owners since it makes it clear that attorney fees and expenses can be recovered in the event the government files a condemnation action and later abandons the taking.  However, if a property owner spends a substantial amount of time and money negotiating with the condemning authority and the complaint is never filed, there is no right to recover attorney fees and expenses.  A complaint must be filed.  In addition, property owners may now look to recover attorney fees and expenses incurred prior to the filing of the complaint providing the attorney fees and expenses are directly related to the taking of the property and are incurred after the property is targeted for condemnation.

In addition to serving as program co-chair, Mr. Duggan will present a seminar entitled Case Law and Legislative Update: Year In Review. The full-day program will provide eminent domain best practices tips, expert trial techniques, a discussion on how to control redevelopment without condemning property, basic and special concerns for valuation, and the new COAH rules driving redevelopment in New Jersey.

You can access the full seminar brochure, as well as registration information, here. (PDF)

In Township of Haddon v. Morgan Brothers, et al., Haddon Township sought to acquire a parcel of real estate by the exercise of its power of eminent domain.  After the complaint was filed, Haddon Township deposited $280,000 with the court which was the Township’s estimate of the fair market value of the property “as if remediated”.  The Township also admitted into evidence an expert report alleging that the amount necessary to remediate the environmental contamination was estimated to exceed $1.3 million.
   

The holder of several tax sale certificates sought to withdraw $125,000 from the $280,000 deposit which was the amount due on the tax sale certificates.  The tax certificate holders argued that as first priority liens under New Jersey law, they were entitled to be paid before any other party in the case.  However, the estimated clean-up costs were approximately $1.3 million and greatly exceeded the value of the property.  The court was asked to determine whether the tax certificate holders were allowed to be paid from the $280,000 being held in escrow, or whether the certificate holders were required to wait to see if there was any money available after the clean-up was completed.
   

Under New Jersey law, when a condemning authority deposits the estimated value of the property into court and files a declaration of taking, title to the property transfers to the condemning authority.   Liens against the property attach to the deposit in priority order.  Parties with an interest in the funds are entitled to file a motion with the court to withdraw funds in the order of their priority.  For example, a mortgage holder is entitled to withdraw the balance due on its mortgage before the property owner receives any funds.  The same holds true for a tax certificate holder who is entitled to be paid before all mortgages, judgments liens and the owner.  This is the case when there are no environmental problems.
   

When there are environmental problems, the process for withdrawing funds is changed.  The condemning authority is entitled to introduce into evidence an environmental report disclosing the estimated clean-up cost for the property and request that the estimated clean-up costs be withheld from the amount on deposit until the clean-up is completed.  For example, if the “as remediated” value of the property is $300,000 and the estimated clean-up costs are $100,000, the property owner and lienholders are only entitled to withdraw $200,000 from the $300,000 on deposit, with the balance of $100,000 to remain in escrow pending the completion of the environmental clean-up.  The term  “as remediated” means the value of the property assuming all environmental remediation has been completed.
   

The Appellate Division ultimately held that the tax liens may only be paid from funds remaining after Haddon Township is reimbursed for the remediation costs.  Under the facts in the case, it was unlikely there will be any remaining funds remaining due to the high cost of remediation.
   

The case is based upon sound reasoning.  Looking at the Haddon Township case, if a property is worth $280,000 “as remediated”, but it costs $1.3 million to remediate it, it has negative value.  After the remediation is completed, the property is only worth $280,000.  It would be unfair to allow the property owner (or lienholders) to keep the $280,000 which is a direct result of the $1.3 million spent to clean up the property. 

As a general rule, a property owner is entitled to just compensation for the value of property taken through eminent domain. If the entire property is acquired, the general measure of compensation is fair market value. However, the matter becomes complicated when only a portion is taken in what is referred to as a “partial taking.”

In a partial-taking, the owner is entitled to be paid for the value of the property taken and any damage to the property they retain, referred to as the “remainder.” Partial takings are generally more complicated than full taking since they require more thorough analysis of the impact on the remainder which may have lost parking, access, highway views and certain future land use rights.

However, what happens when the road widening causes the highway to be so close to the buildings that the owner is forced to close its business and move, or is being so disrupted that operating the business is problematic? Can the property owner force the state to acquire the balance of the property to have a complete taking? The answer depends on whether the value of the remaining property is essentially zero.

The legislature passed a law in 1971 stating, “if as a result of a partial taking of property, the property remaining consists of a parcel or parcels of land having little or no economic value, the condemnor, in its own discretion or at the request of the condemnee, shall acquire the entire partial.” N.J.S.A. 20:3-37. The property left with little or no economic value is commonly referred to as a “uneconomic remnant.” Although at first read the statute seems straightforward, the words “little or no economic value” have caused litigation and heartaches.

Case law interpreting the statute in New Jersey and other states focuses on the economic value of the remainder, not the present use of the property. If the owner can no longer use the property for its present use, they must still prove that the property cannot be put to some other use that has value to force the State to take the entire property.

For example, a New Jersey Court failed to require the State to condemn an entire parcel being utilized as a church when a highway was expanded. After the widening, the highway was 41 feet from the front door of the church and the right of way extended to the lower steps of the entrance. At trial, the pastor testified that the church was unable to conduct services as a result. Although the court did not dispute that the church was deprived of the use of its building, the church failed to show that the property was “unfit for all uses.” As a result, the church was only entitled to the value of any damage it could prove to the property it retained.

In another case, the court did require the State to acquire an entire parcel when it sought to expand a road. In that case, part of the building was taken and what was left could not be put to any economic use. In addition, the remainder lands saddled the property owner with a building that had to be demolished and potentially could cause safety hazards.

It is very difficult to prove that a remainder has little or no economic value. When an owner’s existing use is no longer viable, the property may still have some economic value, thereby precluding a complete taking. This is particularly disturbing when an owner is required to move his business as a result of the taking, but is saddled with a property that no longer meets his needs. Although the condemning authority may be required to pay relocation expenses, the condemning authority is not required to pay for loss of business.

Uneconomic remnants cases are very difficult to win. As a result, it is important for property owners to perform a thorough investigation of every possible way the remainder may have been damaged by the taking in order to be made whole. If an owner does argue the remainder has little or no value, the property must have strong testimony from a qualified appraiser.

The seminar will address:

• Case Law Developments
• The State of Eminent Domain Legislative Reform
• Environmental Issues
• Valuation Issues
• Planners in the Process
• Relocation Assistance Issues
• The Ethics of Redevelopment

You can download the brochure here.

In New Jersey, a business operator (owner or tenant) is entitled to relocation assistance if the business is required to be moved as a result of an eminent domain case. However, under New Jersey law, the mandated relocation benefits are skimpy at best and are presently under review as part of the pending legislation seeking eminent domain reform. As evidenced by a recent Appellate Division decision, business owners must be very diligent in order to maximize their potential recovery of relocation benefits. Jersey City School District v. Marathon Enterprises, docket no. A-6188-03T5, Jan. 4, 2007).

Marathon Enterprises owned a building which was acquired by the Jersey City School District to build a school. After a trial, the jury awarded Marathon $5.2 million as just compensation for the building. Marathon also sought relocation benefits arising from the relocation of machinery and equipment to its new facility. After a three day trial before an administrative law judge, the court awarded Marathon $2,039,265 in relocation benefits. The New Jersey Department of Community Affairs adopted the decision and the Appellate Division affirmed. Why did Marathon receive so much money for relocation benefits? The answer is:

1.  The business involved a meat processing operation (Sabrett hot dogs) which was subject to strict regulation by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA regulations require raw and cook meat to be kept separate, the plant must be cleaned and sanitized daily, and the floors must have drains and be slanted to allow for proper water flow . The administrative law judge’s opinion will tell you everything you always wanted to know (or not know) about hot dogs! As a result of the unique operation, it was not a simple move. 

2.  Neither the school district nor property owner could find a suitable place to relocate the business in the surrounding towns. Marathon decided to buy a building adjacent to its operation in the Bronx, New York, and renovate the building to make it USDA-compliant and accommodate the equipment being relocated from Jersey City. The total cost of the land acquisition and renovations to the building was $11 million. 

3.  Among some of the big ticket items in the renovations of the building were (a) lowering the floor several feet, (b) new electrical service necessary for the equipment being moved, and (c) modifying the building to keep the raw meat process separate from the cooked meat process. The attached decision goes into detail on what was done to the building. Since the USDA has onerous requirements for meat processing operations, the cost of the new facility was exorbitant.

 4.  Most important, Marathon had outstanding documentation to prove its case. During the trial, Marathon was able to separately identify which expenses were directly related to machinery and equipment being moved to the new location. For example, invoices for electrical work were broken down by area of the plant which enable Marathon’s witnesses to relate the invoice to specific equipment (ie. machine being relocated or a new piece of machinery).

This case is important to both condemning authorities and property owners. Condemning authorities must understand the nature of a business to be relocated and investigate any unique needs of the business. The time to do this is before the Workable Relocation Assistance Plan (WRAP) is completed. Properties owners must prepare their case while renovations are being made and ask their contractors to provide detailed invoices for work which may be recoverable under New Jersey law.

Read the decision here.

Technorati Tags: New Jersey : Redevelopment : Condemnation

Technorati Tags: New Jersey : Redevelopment : Eminent Domain