Recent Blog Posts

    • Stark & Stark Wins Case For Property Owner Against Rowan University On May 17, 2011, Timothy P. Duggan, Chair of Stark & Stark’s Eminent Domain and Property Valuation Group, was successful in obtaining a jury verdict in a condemnation action for $4,450,000. Mr. Duggan represented the owner of an old bank building which was taken by Rowan University. When Rowan University and the property owner could not reach an agreement on the amount of just compensation, the matter was tried before a jury in Camden County, New Jersey.   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 ....
    • Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on New Jersey Supreme Court Decision in Eminent Domain Case Timothy P. Duggan, Chair of Stark & Stark’s Condemnation & Eminent Domain Group, was quoted in the March 18, 2011 NJ Biz article, N.J. Supreme Court decision could affect commercial lease negotiation. Mr. Duggan comments on the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision on a Kearny eminent domain case which would affect the majority of commercial lease negotiations in the state. Mr. Duggan states that the decision “is going to have a minimal impact on the majority of condemnation cases, because in the majority of condemnation cases, the government will take the entire property from the owner.” You can read the full article online here.   ....
    • Billboards: Real or Personal Property When Taken by The Government On November 1, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to review a decision by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey holding that a billboard located along the New Jersey Turnpike was not “real property” under the Eminent Domain Act of 1971. New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Witt, et. al., Docket No. A-0995-09T3 (App. Div. July 15, 2010).   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 ....
    • Appellate Division Sides with Property Owner Finding that Interest on a Condemnation Award is Not Limited to the Judgment Rate In most eminent domain cases, the government will deposit the pre-litigation offer with the Superior Court of New Jersey shortly after the complaint is filed.  The property owner (or lien holders) is entitled to withdraw the funds without effecting his or her right to seek additional money from the government. If the property owner is successful in recovering additional money (ie., proving the property is worth more than the government’s appraised value), the government must pay interest on any additional money awarded to the property owner.     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 ....
    • Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Senators' Amendments to Eminent Domain Legislation Timothy P. Duggan, Shareholder of Stark & Stark’s Condemnation group, was quoted in the June 16, 2009 NJ Biz article, Senators announce amendments to eminent domain legislation. The article discusses the recent amendments to State Senate majority leader Steve Sweeney (D-West Deptford) and State Senator Ronald Rice’s (D-Newark) previously proposed eminent domain legislation, which would allow  redevelopment in the state while still providing protection and fair compensation to property owners if eminent domain is required. Mr. Duggan states that you need a good compromise by making certain that redevelopment is allowed to go forward in some areas, such as inner cities, while curbing abuses in areas that are truly not blighted. Mr. Duggan also comments on effects the recent economy has had on several redevelopment plans in the area. You can read the full article online here. ....
    • Court Rules Against Property in Case Where Tenant Was Relocated But the Property Was Never Taken What recourse, if any, does a property owner have when the government relocates a tenant to a new property in anticipation of acquiring the first property by eminent domain, but subsequently decides not to take the property?  The answer depends on the length and terms of the lease.   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 ....
    • New Jersey Supreme Court Sides With Property Owner in Dispute Over Legal Fees in Eminent Domain Case On April 9, 2009, the  New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Appellate Division in a case analyzing a condemning authority’s obligation to reimburse a property owner for legal fees and expenses in a condemnation case.  Township of West Orange v. 769 Associates, LLC, ___, N.J. __  WL. 962687 (2009).  The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a property owner is entitled to reimbursement of his or her attorney fees and expenses as a matter of right once a condemnation complaint is filed and later abandoned by the condemning authority.  More importantly, New Jersey Supreme Court held that the property owner may recover attorney fees and other professional fees incurred  prior to the complaint being filed providing the attorney fees and expenses are directly related to the government’s efforts to acquire the property.  In this particular case, the Court found that the date of the accrual of the right to recover attorney fees and ....
    • Stark & Stark Shareholder to Serve As Co-Chair of 4th Annual CEL International Eminent Domain Seminar Timothy P. Duggan, Shareholder and member of Stark & Stark's Condemnation group, will serve as Co-Chair of the 4th Annual CLE International Eminent Domain Seminar. The seminar will be held Friday April 17, 2009 at the Hilton in Newark, New Jersey. 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) ....
    • Almighty Tax Lien Loses Battle to Environmental Escrow in Condemnation Action Recently, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey was required to determine whether the holders of  tax sale certificates for unpaid real estate taxes were entitled to be paid from the proceeds of a condemnation award when the estimated environmental clean-up costs exceed the fair market value of the property.  After a thorough review of the law, the court held that the tax liens could not be paid until the amount of the environmental liability was determined, even if it meant that the tax liens may never get paid.     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 ....
    • Upon Abandonment, Condemnor Must Pay Legal Fees and Expenses N.J.S.A. 20:3-26(b), part of the Eminent Domain Act of 1971, provides:         “If the court renders final judgment that the condemnor cannot acquire the real property by condemnation or, if the condemnation action is abandoned by the condemnor, then the court shall award the owner of any right, or title to, or interest in such real property, such sum as will reimbursed such owner for his reasonable costs, disbursements and expenses actually incurred, including reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees.”     Despite the clear language in the statute, not all courts have allowed property owners to recover legal fees when a condemning authority decides to abandoned a condemnation case.  For example, a case decided in 1999 denied a request for allowance of legal fees and expenses in a condemnation action where Essex County filed a condemnation complaint, but abandoned the lawsuit before the commissioners held ....
    • What are your views on eminent domain? Timothy P. Duggan, Chair and Shareholder of Stark & Stark's Condemnation group, was the guest commentator on GlobeSt.com's website in response to the question, What are your views on eminent domain? GlobeSt.com is a real estate website providing news alerts, discussion forums and real estate related resources to cities across the nation. In his response, Mr. Duggan discusses the various issues that make eminent domain such a controversial subject, including, the different types of redevelopment, relocation benefits, and the need for adequate compensation. You can read Mr. Duggan's full response here. ....
    • Eminent Domain in New Jersey Conference The Third Annual Eminent Domain in New Jersey Conference, presented by CLE International and Stark & Stark, will be held October 15 and 16, 2007 at the Nassau Inn Princeton, New Jersey. This is an educational two-day seminar focusing on finding a balance between property owner's rights and condemning authorities. The seminar will provide a case law update and seminars focusing on: representing municipalities, legal challenges one will face during the redevelopment process, updates on redevelopment legislation and a discussion on condemning residential areas vs. commercial/retail/industrial areas. The conference will also feature a mock trial with the Honorable Douglas J. Wolfso, Esq. and several New Jersey Real Estate attorneys, including Stark & Stark Shareholder, Timothy Duggan. Mr. Duggan and Vincent Mangini, both Shareholders and member of Stark & Stark's Condemnation and Real Estate Groups, will present the case law update at this year's seminar. You can log onto CLE's ....
    • Somerville Seizes Supermarket's Lease Timothy P. Duggan, Shareholder and member of Stark & Stark's Condemnation Group, was quoted in Monday's Courier News, in the article, Somerville seizes supermarket's lease. Mr. Duggan commented on Pathmark's potential option of filing an appeal in court in order to save the property, and states that while it is difficult to get a stay granted, several recent court decisions have favored property owners. You can read the full article here. ....
    • Eminent Domain and the Art of Compromise Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen released a follow up report on May 29, 2007, addressing what he perceives as abuses in the use of eminent domain to acquire property for redevelopment projects.  After setting forth a synopsis of specific examples of eminent domain abuse arising in cases decided by the New Jersey courts, the Public Advocate suggests several remedies which seemed to be directed towards his critics and the legislators considering amending the existing laws.  However, are  Public Advocate Ronald J. Chen and the two legislators who sponsored bills aimed at reforming the law (Senator Ronald Rice (D-Essex) and Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester)) on a course to reach a proper balance in the law?  Possibly, but more work is needed.     What is at stake is the right to own property on one hand, and the need to encourage and complete redevelopment plans in truly blighted areas.  When used properly, redevelopment can turn a blighted ....
    • New Jersey Supreme Court Reviews The Blighted Areas Clause of the New Jersey Constitution And Strikes And Invalidates a Redevelopment Designation On June 13, 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling which upheld the designation of a parcel of property as being in “need of redevelopment.” Gallenthin Realty Development v. Paulsboro (A-51-2006 - decided June 13, 2007).  The property in question consists of approximately 63 acres of undeveloped open space.  In the past, the property owner used the property to receive dredge deposits from a nearby creek, a use that the property owner believed would continue on a sporadic basis in the future.  Also, the property owner cultivated wild-growing weed which was sold for animal feed.  However, the Township set its eyes on the property and decided it was necessary for a larger redevelopment project.  To take the property, the Township had to first have it designated as an area in need of redevelopment.  Once designated, the Township could invoke its power of eminent domain.  But how could open space that had been ....
    • When Partial Takings Become Complete The New Jersey Turnpike will be widened between Interchanges 6 and 9, including widening the existing roadway from three to six lanes in each direction between 8A in Monroe Twp. and 6 in Mansfield Twp. The Authority also intends to widen the Garden State Parkway between mileposts 30 and 80. Other road projects are occurring on local, county and state roads. Many road-widening projects require that some private property be purchased or condemned under the power of eminent domain. 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 ....
    • Balancing Redevelopment and Property-Owner Rights Timothy Duggan, Chair and Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Real Estate, and Condemnation  groups, authored the article Balancing Redevelopment and Property-Owner Rights in the recent issue of NJ Biz Magazine. You can read the full article here. ....
    • Eminent Domain in New Jersey Timothy Duggan, a Chair of the Condemnation group, will be a presenter at Eminent Domain in New Jersey seminar on April 17, 2007 at the Hyatt Regency New Brunswick in New Brunswick, New Jersey. 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. ....
    • Appellate Division Affirms Case Awarding Relocation Assitance On January 4, 2007, the Appellate Division affirmed a case which awarded $2 million in relocation asistance for a hot dog manufacturer forced to move its business as a result of a condemnation case. 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 ....
    • Achieving Redevelopment through Proper Planning and Cooperation In recent years, the word “redevelopment” has become synonymous with “controversy.” This is attributable in great part to the public’s perception of the overuse and abuse of the eminent domain power, often at the behest of developers perceived as profiteers. Certainly, there have been abuses in this regard. However, redevelopment can be a very useful tool in revitalizing old, economically depressed or underutilized neighborhoods if its implementation is preceded by thoughtful planning that permits active involvement by all those with a direct stake in the outcome. Redevelopment planning is a multifaceted task, approached in any number of ways depending upon the circumstances. First, before conceptualizing a redevelopment project, a builder should find a geographic area that elected municipal officials are interested in revitalizing. As an initial step, a developer should research government records to see whether any neighborhoods within a given ....
    More