December 12, 2017

Anthony F. DellaPelle, Esq., CRE

Practice limited to eminent domain, condemnation, redevelopment and real estate tax appeals

30+ years representing property owners and special counsel to condemning authorities in eminent domain matters

Author, New Jersey Condemnation Law Blog, www.njcondemnationlaw.com Co-Author, The Law of Eminent Domain, New Jersey Chapter – American Bar

Association

2

Anthony F. Della Pelle, Esq. , CRE®adellapelle@mckirdyriskin.comwww.mckirdyriskin.com

•Shareholder, McKirdy, Riskin, Olson & DellaPelle, PC , Morristown, New Jersey•Certified Civil Trial Attorney by NJ Supreme Court• New Jersey Representative, Owners’ Counsel of America• Member, Counselors of Real Estate®

Constitutional and Legislative Grant of Authority◦ Western Union Tel. Co. v. Penn. R.R. Co., 195 U.S. 540 (1904)

Enabling Legislation – Municipal, County, Special Agency, State and Federal Governments ◦ Cincinnati v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390 (1912)

Public Use Requirement◦ Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875)

Requirement for Just Compensation◦ Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548 (1897)

3

Project planning and property investigations Attempt at amicable resolution through bona fide

negotiations Final judgment on authority for and due exercise

of power by condemnor Commissioners’ Hearing Trial/jury trial on appeal from Commissioners’

Report on the issue of just compensation

4

The power of eminent domain is not automatic – it must be granted through legislative action◦ Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403 (1878)

The legislature may delegate the power to other agencies◦ Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1894)

Acts concerning the power of eminent domain are generally strictly construed (C.J.S., Eminent Domain, Sec. 2)◦ Delaware, L & W.R. Co. v. Morristown, 276 U.S. 182 (1928)

The power may only be exercised for the purposes, in the manner and subject to the conditions prescribed by the legislature◦ Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)

Executive Orders cannot authorize eminent domain◦ Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

5

What are the legislative actions that can authorize eminent domain?◦ Statutes◦ Local agency ordinances◦ Resolutions?

Federal/State/County/Local/other Specific government agencies usually have specific

eminent domain powers How the power is exercised may ordinarily be subject to

an omnibus procedural eminent statute (e.g., Eminent Domain Act)

6

Public utilities can exercise eminent domain◦ Statutory Grant

Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717F(h) State statutes◦ Requires Administrative/Regulatory approval◦ Limited Authority

Limited to designated area and properties Subject to restrictions imposed by authorization Must compensation precede taking/preliminary entry authorized? Jurisdictional issues for regional, interstate, international projects

7

1. Federal Law and Court – Penn Easta) Federal Statute authorizing project and condemnationb) Regulatory process through FERCc) Federal court and jurisdictiond) Disclosure requirementse) Litigation process – no jury trial and different procedures

1. State Law and Court – South Jersey Gasa) State statutes authorizing project and condemnationb) Regulatory process through BPUc) State court and proceduresd) Safeguards to property owners through Eminent Domain Act

8

Public Utilities – Prior Public Use Doctrine:

a)The general rule is that a private company that has been authorized to exercise general eminent domain powers cannot do so on land that has already been devoted to public use. State Highway Commission v. Hoester, 362 S.W. 2d 519 (Mo. 1962)b)See U.S. v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 (1946), which contains dictum suggesting that eminent domain authority delegated to private entities (such as utility companies) is limited and therefore subject to a more stringent standard of review than similar delegations to governmental actors.c)Examples and exceptions :

• Will a balancing test be used? See Texas Eastern v. Wildlife Preserves, Inc., 225 A. 2d 130 (N.J. 1966)

• Water company’s rights not exclusive. City of Raton v. Raton Ice Co. 191 P. 518 (N.M. 1920)

9

Failure to deny the authority to condemn will ordinarily result in waiver of the defense

When the authority to condemn is denied, all further steps in the action are typically stayed until the issue of the right to take has been finally determined.

Is determination of right to condemn a final judgment? Does “finally determined" mean exhaustion of the appellate process

if appellate review is sought? ◦ N.J.S.A. 20:3-11◦ Bridgewater Tp. v. Yarnell, 64 N.J. 211 (1974)◦ County of Sussex v. Merrill Lynch, 351 N.J. Super 1 (App. Div. 2002)

10

Are counterclaims permitted without leave of court? Right to discovery on the issue of the right to condemn? N.J.S.A.

20:3-12(d). When must defenses be raised – Order to Show Cause, other

triggering order or rules Who may raise defenses:◦ State v. Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas, 603 N.E. 2d 1005 (Ohio 1992)

(leaseholder may raise defenses even though owner does not)

◦ Honolulu v. F.E. Trotter, (757 P.2d 647)(Hawaii 1988)(unrecorded leaseholder has standing to object to taking)

◦ City of Shakopee, 295 N.W. 2d 495 (Minn. 1980)(purchase option holder has standing to object)waiver of the defense

11

No public purpose – bad faith, pretext Lack of necessity/arbitrary and capricious exercise

of power Failure to pass requisite authorizations Indefinite description Failure to identify necessary parties Failure to engage in bona fide negotiations.

N.J.S.A. 20:3-6 All issues other than just compensation to be

adjudicated

12

Condemnor’s Procedural and Substantive Compliance with Eminent Domain Act and applicable rules

Hearing may be required – summary proceeding/evidentiary hearing?* R. 4:67-5; R. 4:73-1* Bergen County v. Hackensack, 39 N.J.

377 (1963)

13

Court will not substitute its judgment for legislative judgment – deference to legislative determination of necessity◦ Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984)◦ National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Boston & Maine Corp.,

503 U.S. 407 (1992) Private use vs. valid public purpose ◦ Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)

Other procedural objections

14

$$2+MM oceanfront home on Long Beach Island – 18 mile long barrier island

Borough condemns a “dune easement” to allow US Army Corps of Engineers to construct a 22-foot high dune on the property

Borough offers $300 for easement; contends damages are “de minimus”

Owner’s appraiser: loss of views cause $500,000 of damages Owner moves in limine to bar Borough appraisal which contends that

taking creates “special benefits” via storm protection provided by dune Evidence excluded by trial court as “general benefit” Jury awards $375,000 in damages Trial court ruling affirmed by Appellate Division

Before After

Harvey Cedars v. Karan – the setting: Supreme Court grants certification before Superstorm Sandy Superstorm Sandy causes catastrophic property losses Areas with engineered dunes “fare much better” than those without Dune/storm replenishment efforts are renewed in earnest along the

Shore – project ALSO converts private beaches to public beaches Public perception and media portrayal paints “holdout” oceanfront

property owners as greedy, selfish, obstructionists Amicus curiae status granted to State of New Jersey and other

interest groups Politics and policy take over – at the expense of the law?

18

Harvey Cedars v. Karan – 214 N.J. 384 (July, 2013): general-benefits doctrine is “at odds with contemporary principles of

just-compensation jurisprudence” Jury only permitted to hear “one side” of the story Could result in a “windfall” to the property owners at public expense Just compensation in partial taking must be based upon a

consideration of “al l relevant, reasonably calculable, and non-conjectural factors that either decrease or increase the value of the remaining property”

Court recognizes that the loss of view is compensable, but requires rehearing permitting evidence regarding the impact of the storm protection benefits upon the value of the property as an offset to damages

19

Harvey Cedars v. Karan – the implications: Did Karan cause the “holdouts” to change course and donate their

properties?◦ Mr. and Mrs. Karan settle for $1 – WHY?

What impacts will or may it have on just compensation determinations, from the condemnor’s offers to the commissioners’ awards and jury awards that result?

Does the decision provide guidance on whether the “benefits” can be offset against the value of the part taken, or against severance damages only?

Related issues: loss of access, ambiguity in description of rights obtained and scope of rights retained

20

Continued vilification of “holdouts” – approximately 300 (10%) require takings USACOE to build under Project Partnership Agreements State (NJDEP) control over project as “Non-Federal Sponsor” Municipal role and conflict with State “Emergency” measures under Disaster Control Act taken Declaratory judgment actions instituted Condemnations begin Issues presented on right to condemn:◦ Does proper legislative authorization exist?◦ Easements vs. Fee Simple Interests◦ Lack of necessity in some matters◦ “Bona Fide” Negotiations◦ Other procedural issues

The latest from the pending cases and what lies ahead

21

Q&A?

Thank you!

22

Anthony F. DellaPelle, Esq., CRE®adellapelle@mckirdyriskin.com

www.mckirdyriskin.comwww.njcondemnationlaw.com