Category: Real Property Law

Gibson v. Township of Monroe Planning Board

ZONING; NOTICES — With respect to the description of a project, all a public zoning notice must contain is a common sense description of what the property would be used for under the application and need not be exhaustive in detail so long as the general public is fairly apprised of the nature and character of the proposed development.

• Opinion Date: May 14, 2010

Hernandez v. M-Industries, LLC

LANDOWNER’S LIABILITY — As a general matter, a landowner has a nondelegable duty to use reasonable care to protect invitees against known and reasonably discovered dangers, but when the invitee is employed by an independent contractor hired by the landowner to perform work, the landowner does have a duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace, but not a duty to protect an employee or an independent contractor from the very hazard created by doing contracted work.

• Opinion Date: July 15, 2010

The Last Frontier, Inc. v. Blairstown Township Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING — An applicant’s suit against a non-related public entity does not toll the effective time period for a variance that may have been granted and, consequently, the applicant must reapply for a variance if that time period has expired.

• Opinion Date: May 24, 2010

Dream Builders v. Estate of Paton

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT; CONTRACTORS — Even though a contractor may have violated regulatory requirements by not reducing every change order to writing, its customer is not entitled to damages or an award of attorney’s fees if it cannot establish a causal link between the contractor’s regulatory violations and an ascertainable loss.

• Opinion Date: May 14, 2010

Interstate Realty Co., L.L.C. v. Sears Roebuck & Company

LEASES; EXCLUSIVE USES — When interpreting an exclusive use provision in a lease, where the phrase, “including, without limitation” is used, it is not intended that such a phrase makes the category of covered items open-ended, only that other items, similar to those listed, will also be protected.

• Opinion Date: March 30, 2010

Ernest Bock & Sons, Inc. v. Mercer County Improvement Authority

PUBLIC BIDDING — A public bid form requiring that a bidder provide the names and addresses of owners with a greater than ten percent interest is not satisfied merely by the bidder having previously filed such a statement with another bidding agency even if that statement is a matter of public record.

• Opinion Date: February 18, 2010

In Re Riverview Development, LLC

WATERFRONT PERMITS; APPEALS — To appeal the issuance of a waterfront permit by the Department of Environmental Protection, a third party must demonstrate a particularized property interest sufficient to require a hearing on either constitutional or statutory grounds because an obligation imposed on the Office of Administrative Law to review concerns that are not unique to the objector would cause the process of permit applications by state agencies to be come bogged time by time-consuming and costly formal hearings.

• Opinion Date: January 27, 2010

Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon

CONDEMNATION; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS — Even though the statute of limitations to pursue an action for just compensation is governed by a six-year statute of limitations, where the condemning authority continued to insist that no taking had taken place, and then shifts gears years later to claim that there was a taking, the statute of limitations for filing an inverse condemnation action will not be enforced.

• Opinion Date: June 22, 2010

Old Corlies Avenue Preservation Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Twsp. of Neptune

ZONING — Where an applicant’s proposal does not call for subdivision of its property and the applicant’s proposed use is similar to those on nearby properties, a land use board, in granting variances, is not rezoning by means of granting variances, but is performing its proper function in a typical application for variances.

• Opinion Date: May 25, 2010

Iron Mountain Information Management, Inc. v. The City of Newark

CONDEMNATION; NOTICES —Tenants of properties subject to taking by eminent domain do not have the right to actual notice of a blight designation because the New Jersey legislature intended that such notices are only required to be sent to owners of record and to those whose names are listed on the tax assessor’s records.

• Opinion Date: May 19, 2010