Case Law Summaries

Burlington Outlet Mart Partnership v. Burlington County Bridge Commission

• Opinion Date: October 4, 2000
• Real Property Law
• E-Mail

CONDEMNATION—An owner has a duty to preserve the value of its property after a threatened condemnation is rescinded.

A municipal bridge commission recommended replacement of a county bridge which would have required the taking of a multi-tenanted retail outlet. However, 16 months later, a county referendum was passed which disapproved the construction of the bridge. Despite the fact that condemnation of the outlet was no longer an issue, the owner of the outlet continued to warn tenants of the threat of condemnation. As a result, all of the tenants eventually moved out. The buildings on the property were boarded up and eventually were destroyed by fire. Two years after the fire, the owner lost ownership rights in the property through a tax foreclosure. The owner subsequently sued the commission for its losses, which it attributed to the threat of condemnation. The lower court judge concluded that the threat of condemnation resulted only in a temporary loss of rental income, but that this alone did not constitute a substantial destruction of beneficial use. The Court surmised that the outlet could have been rehabilitated after the referendum was passed and saved by the infusion of a relatively small amount of capital. For this reason, the Court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division found no basis for disturbing the final judgment of the lower court, as the lower court’s findings and conclusions were supported by sufficient credible evidence.

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.