severance damages in partial takings cases 2015
TRANSCRIPT
February, 2015
Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation
Partial takings overview Lessons learned Partial takings update: Borough of Harvey
Cedars v. Karan, __ N.J. __ (July 8, 2013) Implications for the future
2
3
4
Just compensation determined by “fair
market value” of the property as of the
date of value
5
• Before and After method
value of entire parcel before taking
– value of remainder after taking = just
compensation
• Per Se method
value of land taken + diminution in value (or
damages) to remainder = just compensation
6
7
8
FACTS:◦ 1M sf warehouse – brand new and empty◦ Date of value = recession◦ Original taking – no damage to remainder? $600,000◦ Revised taking – temporary/permanent damage? $3,100,000◦ Temporary taking disables entire building; permanent taking
damage disputed◦ Rent offered @$5/sf for 6 months-- $2.25M of revised offer◦ Settled during trial for $4,500,000
LESSON:◦ Don’t show your hand before you have to◦ Don’t assume anything◦ Get the condemning agency to second base, then drive the
runner home
In order to obtain severance damages (from taking a non-contiguous parcel) landowner must show that remaining parcel and parcel taken were parts of a single economic use and under the same ownership.
Housing Authority, City of Newark v. Norfolk Realty Co., 71 N.J. 314
(1976)
11
FACTS:◦ Downtown industrial building with no on-site parking◦ Original offer takes adjacent garage property without
consideration of main building - $40,000◦ Town later agrees to reappraise considering unity of use◦ Revised value before $500,000 (new appraiser for City)◦ Case settled for $120,000 + right to use new parking during
daytime/weekday hours + purchase option for main building
LESSON:◦ Look before you leap◦ Don’t show your hand before you have to◦ Be creative and seek non-monetary relief where appropriate◦ Know thy appraiser/expert
3 Basic Rules: Evidence of cost of restoring remaining
property can be no greater than decrease in marked value if left uncured
Cannot be speculative (reasonable and certain – previously written existing boundaries of tract)
Duty to mitigate by condemneeState of New Jersey by Commissioner of Transportation v. Weiswasser, 149 N.J.
320 (1997)
FACTS:◦ Highway widenings @ restaurant and office building, front
parking eliminated/threatened on both◦ Restaurant – cure by replacing with additional land and driveway
Condemnor acquires land (excess land) and builds cure Offer monies retained to compensate for incomplete cure
◦ Office – cure not possible Damages are significant Case settled before construction assuming damage On-site cure implemented by parties after settlement
LESSONS:◦ Timing is critical◦ Should you cure before trial? Before construction?◦ Be nice!
Ordinarily, the effect upon value of a proposed project – either up or down - must be disregarded in valuation ◦ Highest and best use issues - zoning ◦ Physical condition of subject◦ Selection of sales or leases◦ Adjustments to sales or leases
The property is valued as if the “project” never occurred.
General Benefits: those which affect the whole community or neighborhood, and not special benefits unique to the property taken, previously inadmissible in New Jersey◦ These benefits are/were thought to have been enjoyed by entire
area◦ Why should the condemnee pay more for a public improvement
than his/her neighbor whose property is not taken? Special Benefits: Unique to the property taken, are
admissible Consistent with the Project Influence Doctrine
$2M 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
Before and 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 Public perception and media portrayal paints “holdout”
oceanfront property owners as greedy, selfish, obstructionists Increasing political pressure mounted at local and State
levels, subjecting owners to ridicule and shame Amicus curiae status granted to State of New Jersey and
other interest groups
23
Harvey Cedars v. Karan – the decision: 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 “all 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
24
Harvey Cedars v. Karan – the implications: Will/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, or on the project at large? Harvey Cedars v. Groisser Pending challenges – Margate, Long Beach, Jenkinson’s
Compliance with Eminent Domain Act and Federal Act/Regs vs. Executive Order NJDEP and USACOE
25
Harvey Cedars v. Karan – additional implications: Does the decision impact the two traditional methods of
valuing partial takings? Does the decision impact the duty of the condemnor and the
owner to mitigate damages? What remains of the “project influence” doctrine? Shield or
sword? Is compensation for diminution of access back on the table?
26
Q&A?Thank you!
27
Anthony F. DellaPelle, Esq., CRE®[email protected]
www.mckirdyriskin.comwww.njcondemnationlaw.comwww.realestatetaxappeals.com
Practice limited to eminent domain, condemnation, redevelopment and real estate tax appeals 25+ years representing property owners and special counsel to condemning authorities in
eminent domain matters Author, New Jersey Condemnation Law Blog, www.njcondemnationlaw.com New Jersey “Super Lawyer” (“Top 100” - 2009-2014; “Top 10” – 2012) Subcommittee Chair, ABA Section of Litigation – Condemnation, Land Use & Zoning
Committee President, Franklin & Marshall College Alumni Association; Vice President, New Jersey Hall
of Fame Foundation
28
Anthony F. Della Pelle, Esq. , [email protected]
•Shareholder, McKirdy & Riskin, PA •Certified Civil Trial Attorney by NJ Supreme Court• New Jersey Representative, Owners’ Counsel of America• Member, Counselors of Real Estate®