HCIA v. Mariana Properties – App Div Affirms Taking for Road Project
The Appellate Division of the NJ Superior Court recently affirmed a trial court oral opinion by recently elevated and former Hudson County Assignment Judge Jeffrey Jablonski.
The full opinion is available here a2686-22 HCIA Case. The property owner’s counsel argued that the case should be dismissed because the condemnor failed to: 1) conduct bona fide negotiations; 2) account for uneconomic remnant; and 3) articulate a valid public purpose. Owner’s counsel failed to persuade the appellate tribunal:
“We conclude most of Mariana’s contentions, before us and the trial court, are premature and more appropriately addressed at a future valuation proceeding, if necessary, after receipt of the commissioners’ report. Therefore, we focus on whether the HCIA’s offer comported with the requirement to engage in bona fide negotiations prior to commencing a condemnation action, and whether the HCIA has articulated a valid public purpose for the taking. Because we conclude both issues in the affirmative, we agree with the well-reasoned oral opinion of the Honorable Assignment Judge Jeffrey R. Jablonski and affirm.”
It may come as a shock and surprise at the breadth of the power of eminent domain, but when the taking is for a construction of a roadway; jug-handle; and signalized intersection, it will be a heavy lift to successfully argue that the taking is not for a valid public purpose. Roadways are a traditional public use – even when one alleges that the roadway will more likely serve private rather than public interests like the owner in this case. Unless the proposed road can be successfully shown as being unecessary, unsafe, unlawful or arbitrary, or that the government agency is not permitted to undertake the project for some reason other than a lack of public purpose, it is likley to be approved by the courts.
Similarly, the argument that the taking renders a portion of the property an uneconomic remnant fell on deaf ears, at least with respect to whether such argument was adequate to defeat the government’s right to take the property. The appellate court cited the general proposition that “we will not overturn an exercise of eminent domain without affirmative proof of ‘fraud, bad faith, or a manifest abuse’ of authority.” Slip. op at 8. As did the argument that the condemnor failed to negotiate in good faith. The record indicated that the $1.00 offer was made in 2020 and the parties negotiated for two years. In the end, the condemnor offered $625,000 and the owners wanted $2.6M. Eventually, the condemnor disengaged and commenced the condemnation action. The foregoing facts apparently look a lot like a valuation dispute – at least from the court’s perspective – which is the purpose of a condemnation trial (not to require perpetual negotiations that will never bear fruit). Id at 13 (At its core, Mariana’s dispute is not with the character of the negotiations, but with the value of the land to be taken. See N.J. Dep’t of Env’t Prot. v. Midway Beach Condo. Ass’n, 463 N.J. Super. 346, 353 (App. Div. 2020) (affirming the trial court’s finding that “because there was an offer, [the dispute] was not a bona-fide negotiations issue, but rather a valuation-of-property issue”).”
In the end, there’s more than one way to skin a cat, I just hope that this property owner’s counsel is properly armed, as the owner will now have an opportunity to receive just compensation.
